why do americans find "soccer" boring? spin off

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Soccer has the same basic skill for every position except goalkeeper. NFL style football specializes in various positions.

That's only true for completely amateur levels of football, though. If you take it even remotely seriously, there is a world of difference between a defender and a striker. For starters, a striker who dribbles is doing it wrong.
Besides, specialists for various roles aren't unique to gridiron. Cricket has the same thing: people like Tuffers couldn't bat worth tuppence, but are worth their pay as bowlers, while most opening batsmen couldn't bowl a cat out. And yet, children play cricket in the dust, with sticks for wickets, all over India.

No, I think the main reason why football is an everyman sport and gridiron is not is simply this: equipment. For football, you need a ball, and four coats to mark the goals. For gridiron, you need the helmets and the 80s jackets. And they'd better fit you specifically - someone else's helmet is worse than none.
(Contrast baseball, which can be, and is, played, in one form or another, by children on a day off: yes, you need a bat, but all you need is a ball and bat. You don't have to have your very own bat, unless you're a pro.)

Richard

Originally posted by whodey
Just a couple of suggestions for you soccer lovers, why is it that the clock does not count down to zero? This is simply madening to those who have no idea as to what magic number the game will end cause you get the sick feeling that it never will. After all, last I checked numbers go on to infinity.

It's because football fans, being the dregs and the intellectual nadir of European sports fans, are still more intelligent than you gidiron fans, and can actually both count and read.

HTH; HAND.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
It's because football fans, being the dregs and the intellectual nadir of European sports fans, are still more intelligent than you gidiron fans, and can actually both count and read.

HTH; HAND.

Richard

😠

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
I am not diminishing soccer one bit. The veary appeal of soccer is its simplicity. Ball handling, shooting, dribbling, passing, tackling. It does not get exceptionally difficult until you reach the upper levels then these very same skills become enormously difficult. Not a one of us could hope to play offense like a Messi, Maradona, Pele, Rooney defense ...[text shortened]... greats at one position play poorly when switching such as Deion Sanders trying to play receiver.

I think your right in football/soccer at the amateur youth level apart from the really chunky kid who gets put in goal, most players would take pride in being able to play in the other positions(even though they all want to be the striker). However as they get more serious, specialisation is the key, and at a proffessional level players are as fixed in their positions as I imagine gridiron players are; you might see rooney or messi rushing back to their defensive areas but only if something has gone wrong with the shape/formation of their teams.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
That's only true for completely amateur levels of football, though. If you take it even remotely seriously, there is a world of difference between a defender and a striker. For starters, a striker who dribbles is doing it wrong.
Besides, specialists for various roles aren't unique to gridiron. Cricket has the same thing: people like Tuffers couldn't ba ...[text shortened]... ball and bat. You don't have to have your very own bat, unless you're a pro.)

Richard

No argument at all! Soccer is simpler to set up and the basic concepts much simpler. I disagree about a striker who dribbles. To wit Messi is an awesome ball handler and one of the reasons is his dribbling skills.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think your right in football/soccer at the amateur youth level apart from the really chunky kid who gets put in goal, most players would take pride in being able to play in the other positions(even though they all want to be the striker). However as they get more serious, specialisation is the key, and at a proffessional level players are as fixed in thei ...[text shortened]... ir defensive areas but only if something has gone wrong with the shape/formation of their teams.

Of course! Hence the positions, yet in American Football you'll never see a QB on the defensive line nor will you see a lineman taking a snap and throwing the ball. In soccer even the goalie goes forward at times and scores. The essential skills are shared by all although admittedly fullbacks are back for good reason. Pique comes to mind. Tall, gritty, modest ball handling skills, but an awesome weapon during set pieces. Midfielders are usually the most creative and strikers, well, strike! But a good striker is a rare commodity. Alls I know is I love almost all sports as long as I understand them well enough to enjoy strategy and tactics. I do not understand nor will I ever even try Cricket. I'd rather watch old ladies play Canasta!

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
No argument at all! Soccer is simpler to set up and the basic concepts much simpler. I disagree about a striker who dribbles. To wit Messi is an awesome ball handler and one of the reasons is his dribbling skills.

messi isnt a striker, he plays a few positions in a few different ways, forward, insight right even trequartista or wide midfield. strikers are used less and less in europe especially by top teams, even villa who started as a striker very rarely plays as one. the main reason is in big games teams tend to (not always) play with one upfront so teams tend to opt for a more skillfull player who can bring in the two wide men who are switching between a defensive l/r position to an attacking inside forward or advanced winger. some teams still use a striker who has the strength to 'do it on their own' drogba would be a good example and maybe eto.

strikers, tend to be more direct, hang on the shoulder of the last defender, looking for space to attack the ball rather than linking up play, quick reactions and anticipation and vary rarely need to dribble. there is also a target man style striker but i wont bore you with that as well!!!!

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Of course! Hence the positions, yet in American Football you'll never see a QB on the defensive line nor will you see a lineman taking a snap and throwing the ball. In soccer even the goalie goes forward at times and scores. The essential skills are shared by all although admittedly fullbacks are back for good reason. Pique comes to mind. Tall, gritty, ...[text shortened]... do not understand nor will I ever even try Cricket. I'd rather watch old ladies play Canasta!

soccer puts players in the position where you are forced to do multiple roles even if you are not very good at them (paul scholes couldnt tackle a hampster) because of the nature of a.football people of coarse dont need to do multiple roles (i think the game would be better if the players had to defend and attack and aquire more skill) but i bet most of them could play in multiple positions just not to a great standard, which is what happens in soccer. its a bit like baseball i guess where you have the pitchers cant bat and would never make it pro as a batter but they still have to bat anyway. a.football team selection would be much more interesting if you only had one line-up the manager would be then forced to decide what balance of defence and attack he should go for and players who can double up would have much more value.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
soccer puts players in the position where you are forced to do multiple roles even if you are not very good at them (paul scholes couldnt tackle a hampster) because of the nature of a.football people of coarse dont need to do multiple roles (i think the game would be better if the players had to defend and attack and aquire more skill) but i bet most of ...[text shortened]... of defence and attack he should go for and players who can double up would have much more value.

That's ancient American Football history. It used to be more strategic that way. One thing I like about soccer is how the puzzle/riddle of a stout defense is solved by altering the balance of an attack after observing trends on the field. I watched Juventus vs Inter. Exciting 0-0 1st half. 2nd half, Conti, mgr of Juve, inserts ancient striker Del Piero. The energy surge from this one move netted Juve two quick goals, both either set up or scored by Del Piero. There should have been more.

The reason this does not work anymore in our football is the size and speed of players. The huge contracts also mean no one wold risk a QB playing on defense, especially since they are rare commodities. Offensive linemen cannot tackle. The whole game is too specialized. A defensive linemen cannot block. No one on defense could run routes like a receiver, especially the timing route whereby the QB expects the receiver to be at a certain spot and the ball gets thrown to the spot based on a mental count before the receiver is even near the predetermined spot. Nature of the game would be altered too much. That said, the game involves incredible strategy, reading of defense, defenses reading offenses, QB's eyes and other such things. Complex and endlessly entertaining.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
That's ancient American Football history. It used to be more strategic that way. One thing I like about soccer is how the puzzle/riddle of a stout defense is solved by altering the balance of an attack after observing trends on the field. I watched Juventus vs Inter. Exciting 0-0 1st half. 2nd half, Conti, mgr of Juve, inserts ancient striker Del Piero. ...[text shortened]... efenses reading offenses, QB's eyes and other such things. Complex and endlessly entertaining.

is there much of difference between the average salaries of the offence and defence?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so if you guys play touch football for fun as kids, do you not keep playing as adults?

I played touch football for fun on occasion into my 30s, but I've developed some lower back problems and so I've had to limit my competitive sports. I still play some tennis, but that's pretty much it on the competitive sports level. I still do play a little light touch football with my nephews though, when my back feels up to it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
is there much of difference between the average salaries of the offence and defence?

Huge, unless you're talking prime pass rusher, or shut down cover corner. Otherwise QB's have the biggest salaries and are the main avenue towards a championship. There is no one defensive player who could make such a big difference. Look at Eli Manning of the Giants. Eight years in the league, two championships, solid in playoffs. Of course he has a wonderful supporting cast, but then so does almost every top ten team. They beat some pretty big fish on their way to their fourth championship. His brother Payton is the exception. Quite possibly the best QB who ever played yet only one championship. Unluckily for him he was up against Tom Brady in two games and was outplayed. He also got outplayed in 2009 SB by Drew Brees. Otherwise he might have had four rings by now! Now that he's off to the Broncos he automatically makes them contenders!

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Of course! Hence the positions, yet in American Football you'll never see a QB on the defensive line nor will you see a lineman taking a snap and throwing the ball. In soccer even the goalie goes forward at times and scores. The essential skills are shared by all although admittedly fullbacks are back for good reason. Pique comes to mind. Tall, gritty, ...[text shortened]... do not understand nor will I ever even try Cricket. I'd rather watch old ladies play Canasta!

Canasta! Canasta! fair enough 'one mans meat' 'n' that. I'm assuming you have tried watching 20-20 cricket, and the 50 over one day version. I appreciate the rules can be a bit convoluted at times but for pace and action, at least the above two versions have it in oodles and depending on the conditions even test cricket can roll along at a cracking pace.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
is it run by the seattle sounders? could you go and watch small local teams playing a.football?

a.football = american football or association football?

The Sounders are an association football (soccer) club so the fields are for soccer and yes you can watch many games every weekend all year long.

Originally posted by tomtom232
a.football = american football or association football?

The Sounders are an association football (soccer) club so the fields are for soccer and yes you can watch many games every weekend all year long.

sorry, i meant american football. i was wondering if you can catch a game of american football outside of the pro and college leagues. id like to know the same about baseball if anybody knows. i know you have the minors, which i guess is like our semi-pro leagues but is there a pyramid of amateur leagues?