Soccer More Exciting Than Yank Football?

[Eddiee]

End this topic now, its crazy we all know the real FOOTBALL is the best and most popular watched event in the World bypassing any other sport by miles only the Olympic games has more of a TV viewing than FOOTBALL and thats even now becoming a very narrow margin, start this topic after you watch this years (2006) World cup finals in Germany.

FOOTBALL BY FAR THE BEST AND MOST POPULAR SPORT IN THE WORLD, behave yourself guys

[fanciman]

I really don't like soccer because:

1. the acting like i'm dying because someone touched me

2. low scoring, many draws

3. slow pace of the game

But I can appreciate the skill level of the players and there is no doubt it is the most popular code.

1 Yes, that does fill us with contempt for the players. Certain nations are particularly famous for being girls, in this respect; Italy comes to mind.

I remember Italy played at Wembely, then the top stadium in the UK. After the game all the Italian players were moaning. The cause? It seemed that there were no electrical sockets for their hair dryers in the dressing room

2 The opposite would be something like basketball, where the only real excitement is when a side *fail* to score a point when it is their turn with the ball. There have been moves to increase the number of goals, ramping the points for a win up from W2 D1 L0 to W3 D1 L0 was one solution. We love goals, but the fewer they are the more orgasmic it is when one happens.

3 I can not agree with you on this. If you compare football to american football, football is far more flowing, less interrupted and dynamic.

I think the main reason that football hasn't caught on in the usa is because there is too much vested interest in keeping people watching the franchises that already exist, such as baseball. People only have a limited time to devote to such activities and those with influence don't want to lose their customer base to other sports.

I have to say that in terms of depth of game cricket beats baseball hands down, football trumps american football, but american pro wrestling has no competition. I heard that nascar racing is becoming very popular in the usa now, i don't know why. I find most motor sports, like formula 1, to be just processions rather than races.

The world cup will be great. I was thoroughly surprised and indeed amazed and somewhat miffed by the USA's brilliant performance in the last world cup. I couldn't believe they did so well, and the rest of the country seems not to understand what an incredible achievement that was for a first showing in the competition.

My dream world cup draws would include:

israel vs iran

usa vs iraq

england vs germany

argentina vs england

argentina vs brazil

japan vs korea

japan vs china

Anyone who saw this year's Rose Bowl (American football) game knows how foolish this conclusion is. Any contest is exciting if you care about the outcome and if the outcome remains uncertain until the very end.

Today's game was a classic cliff-hanger, with the outcome uncertain until the last few seconds.

But i would say that such hanging-in-the-balance games are oddities for american football. It seems to me, more often than not, that in american football the result is foregone well before the end of the game. Kind of boring, no?

[BambinA]

RubBitch is the game MEN play

and then CrotchIt

[fanciman]

As one of the few Brits who has played American football at a fairly competitive level and can actually speak from experience, I can say without a doubt that American football is far more rougher sport than rugby. It is not even close. Rugby is about grabbing, leaning, and pushing. American football is about collisions. American football players are also bigger, faster, and stronger. American football players require protection for good reason - the sport was going to be banned because so many people were killed playing it. Rugby is rough, American football is violent.

For the longest time, I still held footie as a more exciting sport, until I really learned the US game. It is much more cerebral. More happens in one play of US football then in an entire footie match. It is just too nuanced for the uninitiated.

I still love footie, but I now prefer American football. Let's face it, footie is the most popular sport in the world for the same reason that rice is the most popular food - it's simple, it's cheap, and it's available to the masses.

There are a lot of people on the sidelines in american football who do actually play in the game, all being paid a *lot* of money to have some influence on the game. I have often wondered about this. Really, can one of those people on the sidelines have more than a miniscule impact on what actually happens? They all look *really* serious, probably because aware that they actually can't make much of an impression they are concerned that they are not fired. They seem to think that they are chess players and the people on the field are their pieces to move around, but i don't buy into it. I reckon you could fire nearly all of them and it would not make much of a difference.

I would be interested to hear your response to this. I am sure you won't agree, but you have the experience there so i would like to know what the situation really is.

[thaibebop]

As one of the few Brits who has played American football at a fairly competitive level and can actually speak from experience, I can say without a doubt that American football is far more rougher sport than rugby. It is not even close. Rugby is about grabbing, leaning, and pushing. American football is about collisions. American football players are also bigger, faster, and stronger. American football players require protection for good reason - the sport was going to be banned because so many people were killed playing it. Rugby is rough, American football is violent.

For the longest time, I still held footie as a more exciting sport, until I really learned the US game. It is much more cerebral. More happens in one play of US football then in an entire footie match. It is just too nuanced for the uninitiated.

I still love footie, but I now prefer American football. Let's face it, footie is the most popular sport in the world for the same reason that rice is the most popular food - it's simple, it's cheap, and it's available to the masses.

Hear, Hear!

There are a lot of people on the sidelines in american football who do actually play in the game, all being paid a *lot* of money to have some influence on the game. I have often wondered about this. Really, can one of those people on the sidelines have more than a miniscule impact on what actually happens? They all look *really* serious, probably because aware that they actually can't make much of an impression they are concerned that they are not fired. They seem to think that they are chess players and the people on the field are their pieces to move around, but i don't buy into it. I reckon you could fire nearly all of them and it would not make much of a difference.

I would be interested to hear your response to this. I am sure you won't agree, but you have the experience there so i would like to know what the situation really is.

Those people are on the sidelines because the players on the field can get hurt. They are replacements. In football you have 1st string 2nd string players. 1st string are your best and they play 1st most of the time. If they are hurt or wearing down, the 2nd string replaces them, in a nutshell. The kicker is also on the sidelines most of the game, only coming out for field goals and punts, but many a game is won with a field goal.

[redrus]

As one of the few Brits who has played American football at a fairly competitive level and can actually speak from experience, I can say without a doubt that American football is far more rougher sport than rugby. It is not even close. Rugby is about grabbing, leaning, and pushing. American football is about collisions. American football players are also bigger, faster, and stronger. American football players require protection for good reason - the sport was going to be banned because so many people were killed playing it. Rugby is rough, American football is violent.

For the longest time, I still held footie as a more exciting sport, until I really learned the US game. It is much more cerebral. More happens in one play of US football then in an entire footie match. It is just too nuanced for the uninitiated.

I still love footie, but I now prefer American football. Let's face it, footie is the most popular sport in the world for the same reason that rice is the most popular food - it's simple, it's cheap, and it's available to the masses.

There are a lot of people on the sidelines in american football who do actually play in the game, all being paid a *lot* of money to have some influence on the game. I have often wondered about this. Really, can one of those people on the sidelines have more than a miniscule impact on what actually happens? They all look *really* serious, probably because aware that they actually can't make much of an impression they are concerned that they are not fired. They seem to think that they are chess players and the people on the field are their pieces to move around, but i don't buy into it. I reckon you could fire nearly all of them and it would not make much of a difference.

I would be interested to hear your response to this. I am sure you won't agree, but you have the experience there so i would like to know what the situation really is.

Someone will come and give you a more in-depth explanation.

They are all important to the game as, they are all in different teams.

If I remember right from my youth of being into every sport available. There are 3 or maybe 4 different teams.

1- Attack, 2-Defence and 3- A special team for Special plays/moves.

Because they all specialise in the many different areas, they are all integral to the game and therfore you wouldn't want to fire any of them.

I suppose it depends on which way the game's going as to who see's the most time on the pitch.

redrus

[fanciman]

As one of the few Brits who has played American football at a fairly competitive level and can actually speak from experience, I can say without a doubt that American football is far more rougher sport than rugby. It is not even close. Rugby is about grabbing, leaning, and pushing. American football is about collisions. American football players are also bigger, faster, and stronger. American football players require protection for good reason - the sport was going to be banned because so many people were killed playing it. Rugby is rough, American football is violent.

For the longest time, I still held footie as a more exciting sport, until I really learned the US game. It is much more cerebral. More happens in one play of US football then in an entire footie match. It is just too nuanced for the uninitiated.

I still love footie, but I now prefer American football. Let's face it, footie is the most popular sport in the world for the same reason that rice is the most popular food - it's simple, it's cheap, and it's available to the masses.

There are a lot of people on the sidelines in american football who do actually play in the game, all being paid a *lot* of money to have some influence on the game. I have often wondered about this. Really, can one of those people on the sidelines have more than a miniscule impact on what actually happens? They all look *really* serious, probably because aware that they actually can't make much of an impression they are concerned that they are not fired. They seem to think that they are chess players and the people on the field are their pieces to move around, but i don't buy into it. I reckon you could fire nearly all of them and it would not make much of a difference.

I would be interested to hear your response to this. I am sure you won't agree, but you have the experience there so i would like to know what the situation really is.

Someone will come and give you a more in-depth explanation.

They are all important to the game as, they are all in different teams.

If I remember right from my youth of being into every sport available. There are 3 or maybe 4 different teams.

1- Attack, 2-Defence and 3- A special team for Special plays/moves.

Because they all specialise in the many different areas, they are all integral to the game and therfore you wouldn't want to fire any of them.

I suppose it depends on which way the game's going as to who see's the most time on the pitch.

redrus

OK, the *players*, well, maybe not fire *all* of them but those other guys, with the mics and ear pieces who just tell the guys to do this and do that, those 'generals', surely they should all be fired.

[redrus]

United have about 3-4 coaches on the side at the game,..

so if you've got 3-4 different teams.........?

You see all this talk is making me remember why I prefer Football, that is Football English style not "American Soccer", what they should have called they're own game instead of changing ours.....

[thaibebop]

As one of the few Brits who has played American football at a fairly competitive level and can actually speak from experience, I can say without a doubt that American football is far more rougher sport than rugby. It is not even close. Rugby is about grabbing, leaning, and pushing. American football is about collisions. American football players are also bigger, faster, and stronger. American football players require protection for good reason - the sport was going to be banned because so many people were killed playing it. Rugby is rough, American football is violent.

For the longest time, I still held footie as a more exciting sport, until I really learned the US game. It is much more cerebral. More happens in one play of US football then in an entire footie match. It is just too nuanced for the uninitiated.

I still love footie, but I now prefer American football. Let's face it, footie is the most popular sport in the world for the same reason that rice is the most popular food - it's simple, it's cheap, and it's available to the masses.

There are a lot of people on the sidelines in american football who do actually play in the game, all being paid a *lot* of money to have some influence on the game. I have often wondered about this. Really, can one of those people on the sidelines have more than a miniscule impact on what actually happens? They all look *really* serious, probably because aware that they actually can't make much of an impression they are concerned that they are not fired. They seem to think that they are chess players and the people on the field are their pieces to move around, but i don't buy into it. I reckon you could fire nearly all of them and it would not make much of a difference.

I would be interested to hear your response to this. I am sure you won't agree, but you have the experience there so i would like to know what the situation really is.

Someone will come and give you a more in-depth explanation.

They are all important to the game as, they are all in different teams.

If I remember right from my youth of being into every sport available. There are 3 or maybe 4 different teams.

1- Attack, 2-Defence and 3- A special team for Special plays/moves.

Because they all specialise in the many different areas, they are all integral to the game and therfore you wouldn't want to fire any of them.

I suppose it depends on which way the game's going as to who see's the most time on the pitch.

redrus

OK, the *players*, well, maybe not fire *all* of them but those other guys, with the mics and ear pieces who just tell the guys to do this and do that, those 'generals', surely they should all be fired.

No way, they are the brains. Ever seen a playbook before. They have to decide what play ocmes next and what the players job should be during that play. Soccor is fun, but it's a no brainer, just get infront of the ball. Football has got the brains, that's way the coaches are needed, you don't leave important decsisions to the linemen.

[Fast Eddie]

For the longest time, I still held footie as a more exciting sport, until I really learned the US game. It is much more cerebral. More happens in one play of US football then in an entire footie match. It is just too nuanced for the uninitiated.

Chess is more cerebral than both of them, but that doesn't make it a more exciting game to watch or play.

[Axel]

Very much depends where you are coming from. American football is not really popular in Europe, if for many not unheard of.

If you grew up in America, other than USA or Canada you might be fond of football but not the American

version. Around Asia football is getting more and more popular, the worldcup in Japan andKorea certainly helped.

Reminds me, is there a world cup for American football and how many nations participate?

[stats]

usa vs iraq <<< World Cup Match >>> This is interesting

[markuk]

RubBitch is the game MEN play

and then CrotchIt

hmmmmm crotch rubbing eh???

[johnh101]

Any sport with bueatiful half naked women kicking their legs in the air on the sidelines gets my vote!

I'll second that. I went to see the Saints play the Chicago Bears and spent the whole time watching the "Saintsations"..........&lt;deleted&gt; marvellous they where..........and the game, what I saw, a bit boring.

I never did understand when American footballers take the field with Motorcycle crash helmets, body armour and serious padding they are considered to be "hard". Most of the hard men have beer bellies the size of small towns.

[lovejoy]

There is a world of difference in the 2 games

I think that American football is much better to watch at home or in the pub, I have been to a few American football games and was shocked at how little went on, 60 mins actual play time that takes around 4 hours to play, the players stand around for 3/4 of the time, when there is a TV break they have a wee break as well.

Football on the other hand is non stop play and I think that is the main reason it is not so big in the U.S.A.the networks lose too much advertising revenue

Football is also a more skilled game players have to be able to do a bit of everything, not just throw a ball, catch a ball, block another player that wants the ball.

Soccer is more popular with school kids in America than American football, but there aren’t many options to pursue it as a career, it is looked upon as a game and not a sport.

I was at an exhibition game in giant’s stadium with man u and real Madrid and it had the highest attendance ever at the stadium and the atmosphere was 100 times better than any American football game I had been to

[Plus]

Did you actually read the original story this thread is based on?

The only factor the "researchers" considered was predictability - the less predictable the game, the more exciting they though it would be.

Chess could score very high judging by this criteria only.

AND, the current Premier League has become more predictable, and hence less exciting than baseball.

[The Skipper]

There is definitly too much down time between plays in American Football. Boring to watch a live event.

US Football comes across great on TV. Slo mo replays etc during the breaks.

Soccer may be better watched live, although I don't think I want to be in the stands with all the idiotic fans.

[sir_clumsy]

There is definitly too much down time between plays in American Football. Boring to watch a live event.

US Football comes across great on TV. Slo mo replays etc during the breaks.

Soccer may be better watched live, although I don't think I want to be in the stands with all the idiotic fans.

You're absolutely right. TV and technology turned US football into an exciting, intellectual game. I remember when "instant replays" and "slo-mo" were first introduced; completely changed the nature of the game.

[The Skipper]

Even auto racing is watchable now with all the camera angles, info, etc.

[bachismo]

One of the things that people don't realize is that the protection American football players wear is also used as a weapon. I have played both rugby and American football and both sports require a matcho bravado in order to put your body at such risk. However, even rugby players aren't crazy enough to collide with somebody at full speed without a helmet. Football collisions have amazing force becasue of the speed and size of the athletes. Their protection gives them a false sense of security and they collide with reckless abandon very often leading with their head. Most of the concussions you see are from head to head contact. The hard helmet that protects players is the same hard helmet that causes most of the concussions. Football is unmatched as far as intensity. However, that intesity usually lasts for spurts of 10 seconds. For somebody used to wathcing a game uninterupted, it must be difficult to stomach all of the commercials. Personally, I find rugby a more exciting game to play, but enjoy wathcing football more.

I don't believe there are any rugby players out there who can match Vince Young's atheleticism

[jackr]

Why would it take scientists to work it out?...simply ask 99% of the global population!

That's the point about football (the real football; soccer? tut, tut) being a low-scoring game as it can go either way within a few minutes and is thus more exciting, while if your opponents are hundreds of points ahead, as with Yank football, you may as well piss off home.

The headline should be Rugby more Exciting than Yank Football.

I don't understand the concept of why Americans think that Yank football players are larger and more powerful than the world's rugby players...why would that be? Steroids, from a different planet (we're all the same) or maybe because everything in the States is bigger and better? - ever seen the likes of Jonah Lomu gambolling over all n sundry at fierce speeds with legs the size of tree trunks and pulling away from everyone? YF may be more intense but there's not the continuity and stamina of ruggers, where several phases of play can go on unhindered for many minutes and bodies lay strewn all over the park.

Anyway, no way to convince the Yanks, it's been drummed into 'em by the institution and they'd never come to terms with the fact that football (the real football) is in fact more popular but is being kept under wraps by the powers that be...can't have the 'beautiful game' of the ole Empire being liked by the masses now can we?

[chuchok]

One of the things that people don't realize is that the protection American football players wear is also used as a weapon. I have played both rugby and American football and both sports require a matcho bravado in order to put your body at such risk. However, even rugby players aren't crazy enough to collide with somebody at full speed without a helmet. Football collisions have amazing force becasue of the speed and size of the athletes. Their protection gives them a false sense of security and they collide with reckless abandon very often leading with their head. Most of the concussions you see are from head to head contact. The hard helmet that protects players is the same hard helmet that causes most of the concussions. Football is unmatched as far as intensity. However, that intesity usually lasts for spurts of 10 seconds. For somebody used to wathcing a game uninterupted, it must be difficult to stomach all of the commercials. Personally, I find rugby a more exciting game to play, but enjoy wathcing football more.

I don't believe there are any rugby players out there who can match Vince Young's atheleticism

just to further on what jackr has stated, here is a pic of Jonah. 6'5" 260lbs one of the quickest players in the game.

Edited January 6, 2006 by chuchok

[Guest endure]

just to further on what jackr has stated, here is a pic of Jonah. 6.5" 260lbs one of the quickest players in the game.

What team does he play for? Gulliver's Travels?

[chuchok]

Dunno what you mean...

[Boggers]

What Europeans consistantly ignore is that soccer is not completely foreign to Americans and was being played well before American football became the prefered sport. Historically, the US was one of the first nations to have football clubs outside of Britain. It just faded in popularity against baseball and the development of American football. It has always been around (the US won the Olympic gold in 1904 and played in the first world cup), but soccer has always had more competition in the US from other big money sports then in other countries (where soccer is only the only major sport).

Today, you would be hard pressed to find any American under the age of 40 that did not grow up playing soccer, it is just that when American boys become men, the appeal of basketball, hockey, and American football is much greater. Women have less options, so they tend to stick with soccer. Remember that not only has the US women's national team won the World Cup and the Olympic gold, America actually had a women's professional league that made a serious go of it (and if you saw "Bend It Like Beckham", recall that the girls aspired to play for US universities). Unfortunately, this has resulted in soccer as being viewed as a game for children and women by many.

What other nation has as many big money sports to compete with soccer than the US? I think even Aussies prefer their own game and Canadians will always embrace hockey (as well as their own version of American football) over soccer. Ask a European what team they support, they will almost automatically answer with a soccer club. Ask an American what team they support, and they will give you a few teams from different sports.

An interesting note - a friend of mine who works for ESPN told me that soccer began to lose out to other sports in the US when American media began focusing on statistics, a trend that continues to this day. If you look at American sports, there are loads of verifiable individual and team statistics for every match, which is lacking in soccer. Because baseball, American football, basketball, etc... have a lot statistics, the media gave more time for analysis of these sports, giving them greater exposure and increasing their popularity. Now they are too established for soccer to compete (although soccer has been pushed time and time again).

Wow, sorry for the long post.

[Boggers]

just to further on what jackr has stated, here is a pic of Jonah. 6'5" 260lbs one of the quickest players in the game.

About every American football team has at least 10 guys like this.

Something else to consider - Rugby star Naas Botha tried out for the Dallas Cowboys at the peak of his career and was knocked out cold the first time he was hit. He tired to make the team as a kicker (about the only position non-Americans ever have - it's non-contact), but failed at that even though he was considered one of the best kickers in rugby at the time.

In all honesty, I actually prefered playing rugby to American football, but I would much rather watch American football than rugby.

[The Skipper]

"Anyway, no way to convince the Yanks, it's been drummed into 'em by the institution and they'd never come to terms with the fact that football (the real football) is in fact more popular"

Polio was popular, though nobody wanted it

[Padkapow Guy]

Our girls play your football(soccer).

Do your girls play our football(not soccer)?

enough said.

PKG

[jackr]

just to further on what jackr has stated, here is a pic of Jonah. 6'5" 260lbs one of the quickest players in the game.

About every American football team has at least 10 guys like this.

So does a rugby team, but he's one up from the lot (or used to be) and used to go through anyone and everyone even with dodgy kidneys. Unless you know any sort of background about the guy and watch him play, you wouldn't be able to appreciate it.

At the end of the day guys, YF seems a bit of a piss take, developed by the Yanks for the Yanks whereas rugby is more watchable and unrehearsed. I've no doubt that ex rugby stars were possibly knocked out or overawed by Yank football as it's a completely alien game to most outside of America and needs growing up with, but take any of your fiercest of players, rip all the armour off and bung them in a top squad and they'd we wetting their pants, especially when Lomu is charging them down at full tilt.

"Anyway, no way to convince the Yanks, it's been drummed into 'em by the institution and they'd never come to terms with the fact that football (the real football) is in fact more popular"

Polio was popular, though nobody wanted it

Polo actually has more worldwide coverage and appeal than YF ole mate, but usually for the classy types....probably why you don't get much of it around your neck of the woods

[thaibebop]

Our girls play your football(soccer).

Do your girls play our football(not soccer)?

enough said.

PKG

Right on!