After denying that soccer had even the slightest resemblance to hockey just a few weeks ago to one of my friends, I have now attended two Chicago Fire soccer games.  I've watched soccer in the past, and actually get excited for say the World Cup. But to say a couple weeks ago that I liked soccer would be wrong.  With the privilege to go to a few games, mostly to learn and get to understand the game better, soccer has grown on me a bit.  And the comparison to hockey (a sport that I love and know a ton about), well, there is some truth to it. Soccer isn't played on ice, will never be mistaken for physical, nor will it ever be as fast-paced, but there are some similarities. 

There are two goals, each on opposite ends of the field where each team tries to score on their opponent. The team with the most goals wins. That's easy- we all know that. Not as obvious, however, is the way both soccer and hockey limit the amount of interruptions during the game. Different than basketball, for example, where play is stopped frequently and teams are allowed up to six timeouts throughout the game, soccer has running time, and hockey, teams are only allowed only one timeout each, which allows the game to maintain flow and rhythm (I am a proponent of this).

Another similarity that I noticed (Okay it was my boss) was the importance of ball control and puck possession in both sports.  Holding onto the ball does a few things: It guarantees that the ball will not end up in your net; the opposing team gets worn down from chasing you around trying to gain control of the ball; and most importantly, you are taking the play to them, controlling and dictating the pace and flow of the game.  That is something that the Detroit Red Wings in the NHL are well-known for, and is a reason for their continued success for so long.  They developed a system, with great passing and puck-handling, to essentially play keep-away with the opposing team.  In soccer, the time of possession with the ball is a good indicator of the team who usually wins.  And while that is also true in football, the possession time is more distributed through all the players on the field in soccer, compared to just one or two players in football, namely the running back.

Also, both sports seem to really excel at the idea of working as a "team" to win, or using all of its players to be successful. Sometimes, in other sports and I'm going to use basketball again as an example, that concept is lacking with all the star players who can almost win games on their own. Sure, there are the Alex Ovechkins (plays in the NHL) of the world who can do this, and I'm sure there are stars who can take over games in soccer, but it is far less common because both sports are so team oriented. Isn't this how team sports should be? I think so. I'm sure as I attend more games and get a better understanding of some of the strategy behind the game, I can give more of a recap/analysis about the game rather than opinion, but for now, that’s where I'm at.