- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76the situation in the middlesbrough match doesnt happend often as this was a cup match (european cup games have 2 matches home and away and the two scores are added for the win) most games are league matches and are for points. for me its not afainst competitive sport nature, lots of sports have very differing rules on what a win is and how much you need win,the needing 4 goals sets up a unique situation in which the home team has to throw caution to the wind, role up their sleeves and have the game of their lifes. but 4 goals in a game is not rare in the premier league (english) which i think is averages around 3 goals a game, this season we have had several 5-0,6-0 games between big teams. i could argue that the situation of a last minute touch down in a big game doesnt happen that often in football. thats what makes it brilliant when it does happen. people go crazy when a goals is scored because its hard work getting one and the skill involved can unbelievable. if the score was 20-18 every game goals would loose their value.
Anyway, about the 4 goal game, yes, but that doesn't happen all that often, does it?
And incidentally, I hate the idea of the score determining the outcome of a championship. A win is a win is a win. For a team to be up 3-2, but need another goal to win 4-2 strikes me as being against the very nature of competitive sports.
To quote the great Herm Edward ...[text shortened]... ave a better solution, but that it has to come to that is an indictment of the sport.
.
i do agree about penalty shoot outs. they can be exciting to watch and can make you feel sick to the stomach if its your team, but a world cup should never be decided on penalties. what happens in football? do they just keep going? what about tv schedules?
i see your point about the about of team line-up change in a football game, its not my thing i like my 11 soccer players to have to battle to the end. if a team in soccer was winning by a goal and could change the team and bring on 11 defenders it would ruin the match. you like it in football, but i would say it would be better if you had one line-up and they had to defend and attack. tactically it would be much more interesting as the manager would need to find a balance between offence and defence and player would be more skilled as they would need to double up on roles.
i would suggest to any football fans thinking of watching a bit of soccer. dont watch the mls or international soccer to form an opinion, watch the premier league (england) or la liga (spain).
this might make me sound a bit of wimp, but soccer can be hard and aggressive but it can also be beautiful, gracefull and creative. is that something football fans feel about football or is it not deemed manly or important to have beauty and creativity?
18 Jan 12
A lot of good points have already been made, but I will add that I don't think soccer is as unpopular in the US as conventional wisdom suggests. While it's certainly not as popular as the big four, it still comprises a small part if US culture - "soccer moms" anyone? They're hawt.
I think mainly it's just happenstance. We already have sports with huge followings that are marketed to death. Formula 1 should be more popular here, but NASCAR is crammed down our throats.
I'm surprised American football isn't much more popular internationally. It has high impact, hard hitting action and excitement. It is high scoring, and it's the ultimate of team sports. No other sport combines such a collection of completely different athletic skill sets that all must work together in order to function. You have massive, muscular linemen that require Sumo like skills AND speed. You have the quarterback who (at least) must have great hand eye coordination and be able to make quick tactical decisions. You have wide receivers, kickers, and other positions that are all different still.
To (me) American football is the greatest of all team sports, and what gains the most international appeal? Freaking baseball, a game I find quite boring.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperrugby as the same physical differences between the players as football and also a range of specific jobs they are employed to do.
A lot of good points have already been made, but I will add that I don't think soccer is as unpopular in the US as conventional wisdom suggests. While it's certainly not as popular as the big four, it still comprises a small part if US culture - "soccer moms" anyone? They're hawt.
I think mainly it's just happenstance. We already have sports wi ...[text shortened]... hat gains the most international appeal? Freaking baseball, a game I find quite boring.
what makes football a great team sport? from the outside it seem each player has a job they need to stick to for each play and dont really interact with their team during the play. soccer is about combining together, passing and moving as a unit, swopping positions covering for each other. doesnt the amount they interact make soccer more of a team game? its all getting subjective again!!!! i was hoping to avoid this and get some cold hard facts. or maybe it is all subjective and really there is no solid difference just what we are raised watching and playing.
another question - when i was a kid, we all played soccer all the time not just full games for teams but we would have other soccer based games to play with friends depending how many were playing down to games with just 2 people like keepy ups and wallie. we would play on fields, parks, pitches, roads, gardens anywhere. as adults we have small local teams to play for, pubs who have teams, company teams, smaller sided teams 5-a-side, 6-a-side and so on. is it the same for football? i never here of any teams outside of the nfl and college football, can a bunch of men put a team together and play in local teams? to kids play football in the street? isnt being the quaterback the only fun position?
is baseball the biggest of the american sports internationally. i thought it would be the bottom of the list. id say basketball has to be the biggest. its played everywhere.
Originally posted by stellspalfieNo doubt rugby positions have differing body types and skill sets, but nowhere near to the extreme of American football, where you have 185 pound players on the same field with some guys weighing over 300 pounds.
rugby as the same physical differences between the players as football and also a range of specific jobs they are employed to do.
what makes football a great team sport? from the outside it seem each player has a job they need to stick to for each play and dont really interact with their team during the play. soccer is about combining together, passi ...[text shortened]... would be the bottom of the list. id say basketball has to be the biggest. its played everywhere.
In almost all team sports (sans baseball) all players interact with great frequency, but the fact that some don't in football doesn't take away from the team aspect at all. If just one position doesn't do their job the entire team breaks down. Give a star quarterback some great receivers and put him behind an incompetent line and the passing game will likely suck. The team aspect of an army is immeasurable, but most of the critical elements don't interact at all.
In all team sports there are varying athletic traits and skills between positions. Even in basketball your typical forward will be very tall and your point guard will be short(er), but have superior ball handling skills. But the extreme variance of body types, athletic traits and skill sets in football is one reason I love the game. Rugby is closer to football in that regard than any other sport that I can think of, but it's still not to the same extreme.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBaseball is a thinking man's game.
A lot of good points have already been made, but I will add that I don't think soccer is as unpopular in the US as conventional wisdom suggests. While it's certainly not as popular as the big four, it still comprises a small part if US culture - "soccer moms" anyone? They're hawt.
I think mainly it's just happenstance. We already have sports wi ...[text shortened]... hat gains the most international appeal? Freaking baseball, a game I find quite boring.
If you "watch" baseball as a seat cover, I can see how one might get bored.
However, when you watch it at the sophisticated level, the anticipation of moves,
the execution of plays, it is more of a virtual chess game.
Some people will even say chess is boring.
18 Jan 12
Originally posted by shortcircuitI agree, especially about some people thinking chess is boring. It's difficult to quantify for comparison sake but football is also very much a thinking man's sport, and gets very technical from what type of formations to run against which defense, match ups, play calling and decisions made by the QB. But you also get fast paced action and hard hitting brutality 😉
Baseball is a thinking man's game.
If you "watch" baseball as a seat cover, I can see how one might get bored.
However, when you watch it at the sophisticated level, the anticipation of moves,
the execution of plays, it is more of a virtual chess game.
Some people will even say chess is boring.
Truth be told I've been to a few baseball games and had a blast. But on TV.... zzzzzzzzz
18 Jan 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieSimple. Soccer is like most team sports now where the focus is playing a system. Creativity is shunned and standard play is thrown at the viewer consistently. Most teams can't compete with the big spenders and are forced to play defensive shells hoping for a tie or a lucky bounce.
i interested to know, what is it about soccer* american football fans hate so much? is it the low scorelines? what games have they watched to develop their opinions from? do american football fans generally like other team sports? is it just american sports they like? do they like rugby? i need to understand why the beautiful game is hated so much. i wa ...[text shortened]... ther sports around at the time that goes by the name of football. which of coarse is football.
Why is it boring? Because it is. For the most part, only the world cup, the euro and some of the FA cup are worth watching. the rest of the 95% of games played are predictable moments of yawns intersparsed with diving europeans who look like they've been gunned down by a sniper the moment someone comes within 5 feet of them....
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperon the contrary, we dont need to be padded up to enjoy full contact sport, rugby
No doubt rugby positions have differing body types and skill sets, but nowhere near to the extreme of American football, where you have 185 pound players on the same field with some guys weighing over 300 pounds.
In almost all team sports (sans baseball) all players interact with great frequency, but the fact that some don't in football doesn't at regard than any other sport that I can think of, but it's still not to the same extreme.
players would have American footballers for breakfast, any day, Aussies, Kiwis,
Saffers! Americans are pansies! 😛
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19036
19 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperMore American ignorance shinning through. Do some research before posting... google 'Peter Stringer'... one of many little people who play rugby. Then have a look at a scrum.
No doubt rugby positions have differing body types and skill sets, but nowhere near to the extreme of American football, where you have 185 pound players on the same field with some guys weighing over 300 pounds.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19036
19 Jan 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieI'm pretty sure basketball was invented by a Canadian... not sure who invented hockey but i wouldn't call it an American sport.
is baseball the biggest of the american sports internationally. i thought it would be the bottom of the list. id say basketball has to be the biggest. its played everywhere.
Between football and baseball, baseball is much more popular on a global scale than football... not in viewing figures world series vs the super bowl but certainly in professional players outside of the US. You just have to look at the world baseball classic and the fact that it used to be an Olympic sport.
Originally posted by Trev33Riiiight.. and Google Spud Webb. That's my proof that basketball players vary so widely. No, wait. He's one of the smallest professional players to have ever played the game. That would be totally dishonest of me to use as an example.
More American ignorance shinning through. Do some research before posting... google 'Peter Stringer'... one of many little people who play rugby. Then have a look at a scrum.
The typical "small" guys in rugby tend to be about 175 pounds or so, and the heavy guys mid 200's - perhaps the real giants hitting high 200's.
Here's the 49ers roster, ONE SINGLE TEAM. The weights range from 180 - 331 pounds and everything in between. All I had to do was pull up my home team to make my point.
http://www.49ers.com/team/roster.html
But since you cherry picked a little guy I guess I'll do the same.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/24709
Brandon Banks, 5' 7' 155 pounds. About the same size as Peter Stringer. Now how many 300+ pound Rugby players can you find? There's about ten or twelve on just the 49ers team.
Do some research before posting....
Oops, did you just get burned by American ignorance? Sorry about that.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
19 Jan 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieI do not find it boring. It's what I played as a youngster instead of American football, baseball, or basketball. I'll watch a match whenever I get the chance.
i interested to know, what is it about soccer* american football fans hate so much? is it the low scorelines? what games have they watched to develop their opinions from? do american football fans generally like other team sports? is it just american sports they like? do they like rugby? i need to understand why the beautiful game is hated so much. i wa ...[text shortened]... ther sports around at the time that goes by the name of football. which of coarse is football.
19 Jan 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieFootball requires tremendous creativity. On offense, you need to decide whether to run or pass, to run right, left or center? A sweep, a draw a pitch? Do you give it to the fullback or halfback? A QB keeper?
the situation in the middlesbrough match doesnt happend often as this was a cup match (european cup games have 2 matches home and away and the two scores are added for the win) most games are league matches and are for points. for me its not afainst competitive sport nature, lots of sports have very differing rules on what a win is and how much you need ...[text shortened]... l fans feel about football or is it not deemed manly or important to have beauty and creativity?
And that's just running. For passing, the possibilities are endless. There are 5 eligible receivers and all of them can go wherever they want. Do you throw a screen or release the HB or keep him in to block? The permutations of route running are infinite.
On defense, do you put 8 men in the box to stop the run and make the QB beat you or do you put in 6 DBs and make them try to run it. These dynamics change from play to play depending on the personnel.
A guy like Peyton Manning is an artist. He audibles the play basically every down. How well you can throw the ball is really only part of it. It's also how well you can read the defense and how well the defense can camouflage its intent.
Then you have the whole set of trick plays like the flea flicker, the double reverse, the HB option, etc, etc, etc. which can work great or blow up in your face.
I'm not saying soccer doesn't have many of these attributes, but it's not like creativity is absent in football.