Let me say at the start that I dislike soccer.  many years ago I used to watch Birmingham City and Villa on alternate weeks with a group of friends and it was fun.  However I just lost interest.

Yesterday Virgin told me that I had a month free trial of ESPN and today there was Birmingham vs Wolves in the cup.  So myself and blazer minor settled down to watch.  After 40 minutes of total dross I went out.  I was not surprised to hear later that the game was a 0-0 draw.  They could have taken both keepers off the pitch and no-one would have noticed given that they had nothing to do except take the occasional goal kick.  Where has soccer gone wrong, it use to be exciting, there were players who made things happen.  Now soccer is just where the working class go to watch millionaires fall over!

blazer:

Now soccer is just where the working class go to watch millionaires fall over!

Firstly - no football fan would ever refer to the game as 'soccer'. Awful Americanism. 

Secondly - you decided to watch 40 minutes of Birmingham versus Wolverhampton in order to form the basis for your lame judgement. 

Thirdly, ESPN is a third rate channel and broadcaster, so are you really suprised their product and coverage is anything other than dross? 

blazer:

 

The game has been called 'soccer' in this country even before the Americans knew it existed (the game that is).  Soccer is a diminuative for 'Association' as in Association Football!  Any true football fan would know that.

 

I watched Birmingham because if I am going to watch any soccer then it would be a team I used to support and in whose city I still live.

 

As for coverage they could have had 100 cameras in the ground and John Motson doing the commentary, they still wouldn't have needed goalkeepers!

Whether the term 'soccer' originates in England or not is not relevant. Only an outsider to the game would use such a term. 

Congratulations, you 'used to' support a third rate team. However, this doesn't change the fact that you have very little knowledge upon which to base the generalisations you made in your first post. 

"Movies and the cinema going experience is absolute rubbish, how do I know? I've just been to see 40 minutes of the latest Steven Seagal film."

blazer:

Now soccer is just where the working class go to watch millionaires fall over!

blazer:

Cervinia:

Whether the term 'soccer' originates in England or not is not relevant. Only an outsider to the game would use such a term. 

 

It would seem not!

 

http://www.mansfieldsoccer.org/

http://www.socceritalia.net/

http://www.soccer-spain.com/

I pointed out that you used an Americanised term to describe football, and you counteracted this with magazine covers from Australia, Canada and finally one that's actually published in the UK.

 Most humorous (irony obviously) is the fact that one of your magazine covers declares someone called De Guzman to be Canada's M.V.P.

Any news on why you assume that just because Birmingham are useless, it doesn't mean that the whole of football is? 

blazer:

You stated that only an outsider to the game would use the word 'soccer'.  Of course if you believe that only the British are 'insiders' to the game then you are still incorrect!

No - you're mis-quoting me. The only people in this country who refer to the sport as 'soccer' are outsiders. It is not (and hasn't been for the last 30 years) a widely used term. 

blazer:

However I still stand by my opinion that soccer is just a borefest and it doesn't matter whether it is Manchester United or Scunthorpe United.

And what information do you have to base this on? Again, we return to your only experience which seems to be 40 minutes of Birmingham City though the lens of the awful ESPN. 

Along the way I've visited 40+ stadia up and down this country. Celebrating wins at the grounds of both teams you chose to name...

There are many problems that blight our national game, no doubt. But your outsider's analysis offers little in the way of an relevant/important debate.