I’d say the World Cup is the most hyped event in world sports, the viewing figures for the last final were 1.1 billion. I think the hype is bad for the competion as the pressure got to the bigger teams last year which meant quite a few of the tournament favourites were knocked out alot earlier than they should of been.
On the claim that American football must be the roughest game because rugby players, whether union or league, don’t need all that body protection, if motor bike helmets were allowed in rugby you would soon see the players adding about 30 lb of padding, for obvious reasons.
The platooning and constant time outs in the American game make it far too long and tedious. However, the edited highlights of the game are better than most of the stuff you’re likely to see in a game of rugby.
As for soccer, although I’ve played it and found it enjoyable, I cannot stand watching it simply because the superior team wins only about a third of the time. Far too many draws for my taste.
I disagree. There’s a difference between being the most hyped and being the most watched. Of course, my view may be skewed in that the World Cup isn’t really hyped that much in the US.
The problem with the Super Bowl is that it’s billed like in Blackeyes post, but it almost never lives up to the billing and often turns out to be a not very exciting game. At least the World Cup has a tourney set up with eliminations and such, so it’s almost guaranteed excitement and buildup, like the NCAA basketball tourney here.
First tie-breaker in the CL group stage is head-to-head scores – if there’s a tie there as well, *then[/] you go to overall differential. La Liga uses the same system…
Wasn’t aware The Premiership didn’t.
If football is 100% 'Merican who’s kicking our field goals? I skipped that article the first time I read through SI this week and now I’m glad I did. What a jerk.
My opinion is that American football has a number of appealing characteristics.
[list]
[li] It’s visceral. At its heart, it’s intensely physical and even brutal at times. Ask yourself if you’d want to be hit in the midriff by a 350 pound man that spends 9 hours a day in the weight room and runs a 4.5 second 40 yard dash. The hits those guys take and give are vicious. Without pads, people would die frequently in American football. As it is, debilitating injuries are quite common. Ask Joe Thiesman.[/li][li] It’s intellectual. It may seem like a bunch of sweaty grunts pushing each other around, but the strategy involved (and I use that word as a separate concept from tactics, which are also present makes American football almost chesslike in complexity. Time management in American football is probably the most intense of any sport in the world. You strategize against the clock as much as you do the other team. As for tactics, anybody want to do the math on the number of possible combinations of common offensive/defensive plays? And that’s not counting special teams. Or trick plays.[/li][li] As otyhers have mentioned, it’s very well-promoted.[/li] It’s suited perfectly for a TV format.
Ah geezus. One too many helmet hits as a lineman, I guess. Blown coding and typos galore. Sorry.
I’ve loved football all my life(and to buck the trend I absolutely love soccer too), but for much off that time I would have disagreed with this statement. Then I got older and started playing the later Madden video games. As I started learning more and more about the strategy of the game from the different formation to the hundred of different coverage strategies, I was profoundly impressed with the intellectual complexity of the sport. Seriously, Quarterbacks and Middle Linebackers are some of the most complex jobs in all of sport. Or ask a player learning the West Coast Offense for the first time if football is a sport of mindless brutes. And as I said, Soccer is my favorite sport in the world… except for American Football.
My opinion is that although you can look at that ten yard mark as earned, you must also look at its opposite.
If you can prevent that ten yard gain you get posession, and changes in posession over a fairly short timespan make for better spectating.
Who wants to see one side hog the ball for three quarters of the match, it just becomes boring.
American Football has some similarities with Rugby League.
Rugby has two forms, Rugby Union and Rugby League.
Rugby Union is most likely what most folk around the worls are familiar with, and posession is not guarunteed, one side can have the ball virtually the entire game, and yet still be low scoring.
Rugby League is familiar to Australians and Northern England it is similar looking to Rugby Union to the casual observer but is in fact very differant.
In Rugby League you get five attempts in posession to score, on the fifth you either kick it forward to gain territory or you risk running for a try, and if you fail posession is turned over.
Rugby League tackling is very differant to Rugby Union tackling as a result of this.
Rugby League players are expected to stop opposition players dead, one on one if need be, and every time a tackle is made the number of attempts the opposition has at your line drops by one.
Rugby Union tackles are often just a delaying tacic to get you reinforcements into play, a player can be stopped but the ball can still be fed out.
I guess Rugby League is like American Football without the quarterback, or the forward passes and off the ball tackles.
Thre is a lot of interplay in passing in Rugby League, but the ball must always travel backwards on a pass, the only other way is to kick it forward, which generally risks turning over posession and is usually done when there is no other option.
Hits in Rugby Leauge are brutal, I think most American Football players would be shocked if they were expected to play this game without padding, remember that a Rugby League tackle has to stop the man dead, not easy when you have 18 stone brutes running at full speed.
Your last point about there being no passing, not true, but when you have posession in your own 20 metre zone and you have 5 tackles to make ground, most teams would be wary of losing posession so close to their line and tend to be less likely to trhow the ball about, but of course the best sides have few fears about this, which is why they are the best sides.
Passing in Rugby League is crucial, the aim is generally to get your oponents to commit two, maybe three players to a tackle and then offload the ball to an area where you now outnumber the opposition, this is exactly why a defending tackle has to stop the man in one hit, it stops the play and prevents the ball being offloaded.
Passing is vital, it is the object of the game.
H-Ht,
Minor nitpick. It’s actually six tackles for Rugby League. Possession changes hands if/when it happens.
teams try to punt for field position, field goal (1 point) if within range, or something really wild (punt high and follow through), after the fifth tackle to avoid getting caught on the sixth.
Yes, sorry you’re right about the CL, but the premierdhip uses goal difference (IIRC goal difference was also used in the group stages of the last World Cup).
[Alan Owes BEss* the better team wins more like 3/4 of the time in soccer. In soccer it’s not just about being the best team, it’s also about doing enough to win the game. The team I play for at the minute has a defiency upfront (at the moment we don’t have any natural strikers), but we have a very good goalkeeper and a solid back row, so against better teams we quite often play for the draw by emphasising defence and keeping the score 0-0 (infactwe manged to draw 0-0 against against one of the best teams in Berkshire).
H-HT,
My apologies, I meant to address Casdave in my last post.
MC Master of Ceremonies,
A 75% Win/Loss ratio sounds much higher than anything I’ve ever encountered in Association Football, anywhere. I take it this ratio happened without such travesties as penalty shoot outs?.
I admit I was only going on my own impressions and memories. I did like playing the game. (I have played three different football codes and found merit in all of them, incidentally), however, I am a little bit dubious about the 75% win/lose ratio bit. I’m sure that doesn’t apply in the top ranking Premier League.
Irrespective, FWIW, my own radical view is to widen the goalposts to 10 yards, then penalty shoot outs won’t be needed.
Hey, two positive mentionings of me in one thread. Nice. 
Hey, two positive (well, not negative) mentionings of me in one thread. Nice.
No in the premier legaue rougly 25% of the games end in draws (I just had alook at the stats for the 2000-2001 season [no reaon why I choose that particular season just came up on a google search) and 26.3% of the games ended as draws).
I agree with this, but not so radically. I would widen to 8 meters and increase the height to 2 meters. To get an idea of the effect, the approximate result would be that every time the bar or post is hit now, would be a goal with the increased goal size. What would that add on average? 1 - 2 goals a game? That sounds fine to me. I wouldn’t want goals to become too abundant because a lot of the excitement of a goal comes from understanding its importance. We don’t want to turn association football into (shudder) basketball.
Amarone, regualtion goal posts are 2.4m by 7.32m already. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the way the game is now, in general draws only happen when there is not that much to seperate the two teams.
Oops - I knew that! I managed to convert 8 ft to 2 m - I was trying to metricate the game as well as slightly increase the number of goals. My thought is to increase to the level that hitting the woodwork becomes goals. I guess that would be about 8’6". Goalies are so much bigger these days compared with when the dimensions were first set. Also, it is rare to score over a keeper’s head unless they are too far off their line or called David Seaman.
Despite my location, I’m British (Leeds Utd. fan). I don’t think there is much wrong with football at all, but I think another 1 - 2 goals average per game would be an improvement. 3-2 tends to be more exciting than 2-1. 2-1 more than 1-0. But I don’t want to see 7-6.
**
**
There are no penalty shootous in league play or tournament group stages. They only come into play in elimination games – which, depending on the tournament can be a one of, or a home and away series.
In addition to that, any game decided in a shootout is offically ruled as having ended in a tie with a note indicating the winner on penalty kicks, i.e., Brazil and Italy played to a draw in USA '94 – Brazil won on Pk’s. Yes, it is ultimately a technicality, but it also means W/T/L % of any given tournament are not affected by shootouts.