Americans v. Soccer (Round Two)

Last week I laid out my view on why Americans don't like soccer. Today's cover story in USA Today is entitled "Why USA Doesn't Take to Soccer." Coincidence? Probably (if they're getting ideas off of my blog they are in worse shape than their detractors ever imagined). The story hits most of the points I did last week, but adds one that I've seen referenced elsewhere:

Deford isn't finished. 'There's really a lack of proficiency in the game. God didn't intend for us to use our feet and our heads. Though what soccer players do with their feet and their heads is extraordinary, it is in the same way that spinning plates is extraordinary.'

That's long-time Sports Illustrated columnist Frank Deford, card carrying anti-soccer crank and quite possibly the devil. Still, I've seen other people make that point, so I'll address it.

So what? Since when has any sport been about doing some task in the most efficient way possible. The most efficient way to score a touchdown in (gridiron) football would be to not limit the offense to four downs every ten yard - make the other team take the ball away. The most efficient way to move a basketball up and down the court is hardly to dribble it. And baseball sure would be more interesting with a bigger bat, don't you think?

The fact that makes those rules important to those sports is to make them challenging. It's challenging to dribble a round ball down field with your feet and project it into a net past a big dude who can use his hands. That's the point. If you don't like it, fine - I don't see the "proficiency" in beating another human being's brain with your fist, so I don't watch boxing. But to decry a game's "lack of proficiency" is just silly.