I figure the best metric is the ratio of televised time to exciting moments, not all of which have to involve points being scored. Basically, it’s the “highlight reel” method.
No argument here. Subjective or not, I think it does do a better job of filling the OP’s requirements than the official stats are (Shots on Goal, I’m looking in your direction). SOG are a better metric for evaluating the goalie than they are for determining offensive effectiveness. If we’re trying to quantify how exciting a particular game is, some subjectivity is required.
Deel free to find a post in which I contradict myself. I’ll wait.
It came off Billy’s helmet I tells ya. Another one of course was Thommo and AB’s agonising creep toward to 3 run loss in 1982. Over two hours of constant nailbiteation. I think I wore a track in the carpet from nervous pacing. Then it all to end on a flukey “dropped” catch, aargh.
So, is your position that American sports are inherantly superior, and games such as soccer are only more popular because of accessability?
…for a Kiwi example:
Ewen Chatfield was known for a couple of things: he was an outstanding bowler in partnership with Hadlee, and he was also one of our countries worst ever batsmen. Early in his career he was hit on the head by a bouncer in a game against England and literally died on the field, only to be revived by the English physio.
Chatfield was involved in a partnership with Jeremy Coney that won us the game against Pakistan back in '85. Pakistan gifted Coney a run at the start of every over: hoping that Coney would take it giving them 5 balls at Chatfield. Coney took up the offer of the run and slowly, painfully they chased the Pakistan total down.
http://www.sportsfreak.co.nz/show-column.asp?ID=327
Gosh, I love cricket.
My point being thoguh what you can dimprovise cricket you can improvise for baseball.. Howevr a proper game of cricket on balance requires more equipment and a more specific type of playing surface that needs to be well-looked after. Even the lowliest amateur cricket clubs in England need rollers to mainatin the pitch and sight screens for bowlers. As I said at school in England we simply would not be allowed to practice cricket with a proper cricket ball without the batsman wearing pads, gloves and a box.
I’d say a serious game of full 11-a-side soccer requires: metal or wooden goals, a good quality soccer ball, a reasonable playing surface and corner flags (well corner flags aren’t the most vital pieces of equipemnt, but I’ve never seen a serious game played without them). In addition each player must wear a kit which allows them to be recognised as a member of a team , a proper pair of soccer boots (cleats I think their known as in the US) and a pair of shinpads. Goalkeepers will also need to wear a decent pair of gloves (again not 100% necessary, but goalkeepers not wearing gloves is exteremely rare in a serious game). Taht’s defitnely less equipment than American football, but you need a lot more than just a ball to play a proper 11-a-side game.
Hackney Marshes is huge, but a full-size soccer pitches are a bit bigger than American football pitches (they’re approximately the same length, but soccer pitches are 15-25 m wider) so you could fit slightly more American football pitches on Hackney Marshes.
If you think economics is the only factor in it’s then you’re living in cloud cuckoo land.
Yes, that’s true.
The point about showing Hackney Marshes is that it gives you some idea of the scale of the facilities available to play serious amateur soccer on (with full-size facilities and a full set of rules). The number of people who play amateur American Football is tiny in comparison.
My own theory is thatr when you take away the razmatazz of professional American football and even collegiate and high school American football you’re only left with a fairly undistinguished Rugby-variant.
Take amaetur cricket in the UK, I’d guess that in terms of expense to the club and per player it’s about the same as playing amateur American football. You need bats, proetctive equipemnt, shoes, sight screens, cricket whites, a maintence-intensive pitch. By my calculations your looking at thre region of £400 just in terms of equipment for a batsman (and of course all 11 players take turns batting in cricket)
Yet amateur cricket still popular considering it’s probably the UK’s third favourite team sport,
Flaws (cont.): Ignores the excitement (or existence) of intermediate goals; a brilliant run to set up a scoring opportunity in soccer is exciting; a conversion on 3rd & long in football is exciting; etc. Attempts to make fixity out of flux by quantifying the inherently subjective and aesthetic; one might as well attempt to create a “revelatory inspiration index” for, I don’t know, operas. Is *probably *indicative of the sin of trying to rationalize and universalize one’s own preferences, such that those whose preferences differ simply don’t know any better, the poor ignorant bastards.
The forward pass does change the game quite a lot for both offence and defence. Rugby players mostly defend in lines while American Footballers have to man-mark a lot more. Of course, Rugby players can chip the ball forward, but with nowhere near the accuracy of a quaterback throwing the ball.
On the other hand, I don’t think the tactics in American Football are any more rich than a pass-and-movement game (an argument I hear a lot on here). American Football have complicated play-books because the players start from a static position. Compare to soccer, where territory and ultimately scoring opportunities can be gained through any number of linked passes or runs, and where players have to simultaneously cornern themselves with their offensive and defensive positions.
Blocking is a far more fundamental change than the forward pass. (For the Americans who know nothing about rugby, blocking is illegal. Basically the same as hockey where you can only hit the guy with the ball/puck.) If you remove the forward pass from American football, the game still easily recognizable. Remove the blocking, though, and the game instantly changes on a fundamental level. (It effectively becomes rugby.)
Actually, the argument you hear a lot on here is that the sports are about the same regarding tactical depth. It’s strategy where American football has far more depth because they reset before each play.
Would that be right though? If tactics/strategy is short term/long term then resetting after each play removes a lot of the potential strategic long game.
The tactics for each individual play would be complex but strategically it isn’t going to be in the same league as say test cricket.
This could just be semantics though, and flexible definitions.
Tactics are the real-time adjustments and physical techniques like moves, counters, etc… All sports have loads and loads of tactics. Off hand, I’d guess that any two randomly selected sports have equivalent tactical depth. (Otherwise it would be too boring to want to participate on a professional level.)
Strategy is “an elaborate and systematic plan of action.” This cannot exist in free-flowing games in any great depth for the readily apparent reason that you simply can’t devise ahead of time a coherent strategy for all possible conditions. By contrast, a playbook in football is basically the very definition of strategy.
It is said that amateurs focus on strategy, professionals focus on tactics, and generals focus on logistics. That’s a military saying, but substitute coaches for generals and it applies to sports quite nicely.
FWIW, rugby also has playbooks and effectively the game “resets” every time the ball goes out of play, a try is scored, etc.
I’m enjoying this discussion - thanks to the OP for starting it.
I won’t try to analyse at the mathematical level - not my strong suit. 
I’m a Kiwi so my perspective is a little different.
(Ice) Hockey is unknown here but seems a jolly exciting and violent game. Pity it needs so much infrastructure - icerink etc and you can’t identify players because everyone is togged up in armour.
Field hockey - one of the worlds most successful games. All you need is sticks, a ball, and space. I used to play but in truth, watching does not engage me.
Cricket - I’m surrounded by aficionados and as a sport to watch on a nice summers day, it is pleasant. Not my cup of tea because the intricacies are too complex and watching on television is a waste of a beautiful day.
(American Gridiron) football - I like it. A strategic game which is macho but chess-like too.
Basketball - exciting but the timeouts annoy me. Why stop a game at full-pace? Plus its almost too fast to really follow.
Baseball - good, rather akin to cricket with jovial and excited crowds. But I think softball is the better game and it is strong at a social level in the USA, Canada, and New Zealand.
Rugby Union (as opposed to Rugby League) - my preferred TV sport. Complex but also simple in its essence. It’s Gridiron without the helmets and padding plus faster and less predictable.
Tennis - also one of my favourites. Points every few seconds, easy to understand, highly skilled.
Golf - snore…I cannot, simply cannot understand why anyone would give up time in their life to watch golf. It is a healthy sport for participants certainly, but as an observer…I’d rather chat to my cat. He’s a Siamese and much more interesting.
Volleyball - one of the worlds most popular sports. Not for this lad. But nothing wrong with the game, its my problem I can’t take it seriously.
Football/Soccer - the World Game - this is a puzzle. The popularity of this sport IMHO is it’s simplicity. All you need is a ball and open ground/street. At the professional level it is a ballet of extraordinary skills.
Still…I find soccer largely boring. A game where 22 highly skilled athletes can perform for 90 minutes to a Nil-Nil result just ain’t worth it. Widen the goalposts, get rid of the goalie, abandon the off-side rule, it would only take a small change to transform the game.
Not to beat a dead horse, but there is nothing intrinsic about helmets and padding in American football. When it started, the players didn’t wear any. Another way to look at it is that you can play the game without helmets and pads.
A more correct (and less insulting) way to describe rugby in terms of American football is that rugby is American football without blocking or the forward pass.
Imagine what rugby would look like if you could help your teammate move the ball forward by tackling opposing players trying to get your man with the ball. Not saying it would be better or worse, but it would in fact be a very different sport, yes? Now instead imagine rugby players playing by normal rugby rules but wearing helmets and shoulder pads. Same basic sport, right?