During a Penguins game last week, one of the Penguins, and I must confess that I can remember neither the specific game nor the specific Penguin, took and awkward looking shot from about 45 feet out, with an opponent draped over him that somehow found the back of the net for goal. Penguins announcer Bob Errey then said words to the effect that it may have been an ugly looking goal, but that you can never go wrong by just winding up and shooting the puck on the net. Who knows what might happen when you just put the puck on the net? Errey also talks about "puck volume" and the need to just make shots on goal.
This comment of Errey's came to mind as I watched the the USA and Wales play to a 1-1 draw in their opening game of the World Cup. The final stats showed that over the course of the entire match, a match that lasted over 100 minutes with stoppage time, Team USA managed a grand total of 1, as in ONE!!!, shot on goal. Now if you are a glass-half-full kind of guy, you can say, "Hey, the made 100% of their shots", but really, one lousy shot over 100 minutes?
In discussing the game on PTI last night, Tony Kornheiser said that he watched the game and kept yelling at the TV "shoot it shoot it" but hey never did. In fact, the strategy in soccer seems to be to not shoot, but rather to continually pass the ball, pass it, pass it, pass it in the hopes of setting up the "perfect" shot. Something that almost never comes, so you end up with the USA taking one shot, blowing 1-0 lead and probably punching their ticket out of the World Cup once group play concludes.
And in the For What It's Worth Dept., two of the three games played today, Denmark v. Tunesia and Mexico v. Poland, ended in 0-0 draws. Those four teams registered a total of twelve (12) shots on goal among them.
Were they even trying to score?
History, or at least history as I remember it, lesson. I may be fuzzy on some of the details, but I think I am correct in the overall picture.....
Back in 1966, the World Cup final match between England and Germany, was televised live on ABC's Wide World of Sports. England won the match, and ABC, which had no such expectations, was astounded with how well the ratings in America were for the game. The ratings were so good that American sporting magnates launched, in 1967, not one, but two professional soccer leagues...
...Pardon the interruption, but as I have been typing this piece, I have had the match between Australia and France on the telly. France had been enjoying a 2-1 lead in the second half, but over the course of about ten minutes of actual time, French star futboler Kylian Mbappe had taken not one, not two, not three, but four shots on the net. The fourth one tickled the twine and France now leads 3-1. Bob Errey was right. OH, THIS JUST IN....as I was typing THIS aside, Mbappe just sent a perfect cross pass in front ot the net which a team mate headed into the net. 4-1 France......
Okay, where was I? Yes, two professional soccer leagues, the North American Professional Soccer League and the National Professional Soccer League, arrived on the scene in 1967. What Pittsburgh sports fan doesn't remember the glory days of Co Prins and the Pittsburgh Phantoms? High schools which had no soccer teams, started one, and youth soccer became a thing here in the USA. This would lead, we were assured, to soccer becoming a dominant sport in the USA and the USA to becoming a dominant power in the game upon the world stage, and all of this would happen within two, maybe three generations.
That was over fifty years ago and what has happened? Soccer has become a thriving sport in America. It is played adjust about every high school. I have six nieces and nephews who have played it and played it well on the high school level, and two of those nephews have played on the collegiate level. "Youth Soccer" has become a thriving industry, and according to some pundits, "Soccer Moms" have become a real political demographic. The NASL and the NPSL no longer exists, but Major League soccer, the MLS, has taken root and thrived (as I wrote back in 2020 HERE).
And the USA has indeed become a dominant soccer power. That is, the USA Women have become the dominant power. FIFA began staging a Women's World Cup in 1991 and the US Women's National Team have won four of the eight tournaments contested. Brandi Chastain, Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, and Megan Rapinoe are athletes that are known by American sports fans, not just American soccer fans.
It has not happened for the US Men's National Team. The team seems to exist on the fringes of international soccer. They failed to qualify for the World Cup in 2018, and after snatching a tie from the jaws of victory yesterday, there's a good shot that they will not advance beyond group play this year. In international competition, they continually lose to nations like Costa Rica and Panama, nations with a tiny fraction of the population the United States. Is it because the best athletes in America still prefer football, basketball, or baseball? That seems to be too simple an explanation.
Anyone else have a theory?