Judy, I think part of the problem is that on the surface soccer is set up in a very similar way to hockey. And while hockey is generally very low scoring (by our standards) there are still usually 5 or so goals per game. Plus there are fights. Thus according to a theory I just made up most prospective soccer fans in the US become hockey fans instead because it's like soccer but more exciting.
Interesting point, happily accepted.
That doesn't really explain what I am asking. Which is where the hell did it come from? How did someone think of it? Who was watching a bunch of drunken Englishmen beat each other up (Sorry Judy but that is my mental image of the sport) and said "That would be great for eight year olds"? Is there one person who had this idea who we should hold responsible?
Well there's your problem. Football is, at heart, a game based around skill, intelligence and fitness as opposed to great speed and strength. Whilst some big fucker up front will always do well the best team in the world at the moment, Spain, are almost exclusively under 6ft and wee, dwarfed by the Swedish or Germans. But they play technically superb incisive football along the ground and hence beat nearly anyone (except the United States, as it turns out). It is not how you envisage it at all.
This is why it is good for kids. To re-iterate points above, while it is often a violent game (in the Liverpool game today two players pretty much got snapped ankles, lots of face kicks etc.) it is not supposed to be. I played this morning for my 6-a-side team safe in the knowledge I would likely not be nursing anything serious afterwards assuming both teams played fairly. We lost, but I got a very good work-out and many touches of the ball despite having a poor game by my standards. What better game for kids?
As LFM has stated, when it's a very basic level all you need is two goalposts and a ball. Whilst tactics are crucial to top-level football (more on that later) who really cares? Kids love to run around and indeed throughout Europe clubs encourage their youngsters to play free-roaming roles in a 6-a-side game as opposed to assigning them roles at such a young age, this how natural development and footballing intelligence is built. When it's for fun, any old dad can assume the mantle of coach assuming he has the most basic working knowledge of the game. It's perfect for kids and I can't comprehend how you assume it was some crazy idea to pitch it kids.
Beyond that, I mean, there's not a lot of obvious strategy to it. You don't set up plays in the manner of a baseball pitcher or a basketball or football playbook. Maybe there... are for all I know... but nothing that's clear to an outside obverser
It is more simple on the surface than those sports; like you say, no plays, no overly complicated rules barring offside. Beyond keeper the same rules apply to every player. But...
. There's a ball, you try to either kick it into a net or kick it to your friend to kick it in the net or kick it away from the other dude trying to kick it into the net.
I hate this. Anything sounds stupid when you put it that way. Baseball: "The pitcher tries to strike out the batter. The batter tries to hit it in a place where the other team won't catch it". Pigskinball: "The quarterback attempts to throw it a player who is on a clear run or start a passing move. The defending team attempt to stop the attacking team from getting in positions to score". Did that infuriate you? Because that is what my flatmate just said when I asked him to describe the games. I and him both know there is 10x more to it than that but that's mostly what we see, like as you see football.
A quick lesson on footballing tactics.
Say you play a 4-4-2
Keeper
Right Back Centre Back Centre Back Left Back
Right Winger Centre Midfielder Centre Midfielder Left Winger
Striker Striker
At it's most basic, defenders would stay back. Midfielders would defend or attack based on the position of the ball and flow of the game. Strikers aim to score, rarely defending.
But.
You could have the left and right backs bombing forward on the overlap as opposed to staying back. Or they could move further into the field making the play narrower. One centre back could move the ball forward in possession whilst the other stays back. Both could stay tight on their marker or drop deeper to avoid being turned. One could even have free license to roam up the pitch. In which case you'd want one of your centre midfielders to drop back, making him the 'defensive midfielder'. The other centre midfielder could push forward forming a diamond shape, making an 'attacking midfielder'. Both could play deep, aiming to control the play. In which case the wingers would look to play further upfield right on the touchline and look for balls into the channels and stretch the opposition defence wide, making it vulnerable. Alternatively, they could play very narrowly, almost becoming centre midfielders. They could simply act as bodies on the wings and allow the play to concentrate for the middle, in which case a striker could sit back and provide a link in the midfield. Both strikers could do this in an attempt to control possession, or one could look for knock-ons for his pacy partner. They could drift wide allowing the wingers to attack through the middle. They could dribble with the ball or simply hold it up and look for the pass.
All these things, and I've missed out hundreds of other possibilities, will have been planned and practised before the game. But perhaps the beauty as well is that a player can use his own intuition here, doing what he feels is right for the situation. If a centre midfielder spots the right back far upfield and about to lose possession, he will often move into the space left to cover. Alternatively, he could leave it. It's all about familiarity and intelligence.
And that's before I even get onto different formations. 4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1, 3-5-2, 3-6-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-2-4, 5-3-2, 5-4-1, Barcelona's 4-1-2-3-1. You could play a flat back four playing for the offside or one sat deep to reduce the danger of through balls. You could counter-attack, looking to soak up pressure before launching it forward and catching your opponents off-guard; you could aim to control possession instead, making your way gradually up the field looking for an opening. There's literally thousands of variations on how to defend as a team, attack as a team, and thousands of ways of playing your own individual game. Right, the guy your marking is physically stronger and faster. Drop deep so that he can't turn you or play off your shoulder and hope to force him into a position uncomfortable for him. Playing attacking midfield and being marked tightly? You could drift deep, go wide or look to find space behind him. So many many many ways all of which are considered.
It is not a brainless sport at the highest level. Kids maybe but even if a player could dribble, shoot, pass, tackle, cross and head the ball better than any other player in the world it would mean fuck all if he didn't know where to run, when to run, who to mark, who to pass to at any given moment etc.
Football is less scientifically tactical than your 'plays' where every player has a concrete role he will not normally deviate from. There are formations, and there are instructions, but the real tactics lie in the mind of each player. Those culturally versed in top level football can see and appreciate it, understandably those who are not can't. But then I can't make head nor tail of your sports so I guess we're even.