Football was about two decades late to the party. In countries where it could've conceivably flourished (UK, Australia, New Zealand), rugby or some other "eggball" variant was already firmly culturally established by the time American football was codified and gaining traction here. It's also the most complicated rugby variant, so it's not an easy sport to grow. Basketball is our most popular sporting export for a reason (and the second most popular sport worldwide). It's basically high scoring soccer played vertically with a relatively simplistic rule set and gameplay style. It also has the "flow" foreigners from soccer countries love so much (on that note, people from soccer countries seem to be unable to comprehend sports that start-and-stop and mistakenly reduce "action" down to player/ball movement only. A side-effect of soccer being the only relevant sport in their countries. Any sport that deviates from soccer style flow is derided as boring or static).
Outstanding stuff. Perhaps Vince McMahon can 'globalize' football like he did with pro wrestling. The XFL has the potential to break some ground though it is probably destined for another financial flop. The crowds at the London games for the NFL are always enthusiastic and loud. I think there is a market there, but it's all about getting it indoctrinated into the schools, so the kids can play something different besides kickball.
Dismisses post because of "subjective taste" and then goes on to giving his subjective opinion of why soccer is a poorly designed sport.What is skillful and beautiful comes down to subjective taste. Furthermore, skillfulness and beauty doesn't always translate into making something more "compelling" (in a sporting context). Figure skaters are very skillful athletes who routinely pull off beautiful moves, but it's a ty sport. Same thing with soccer. No matter how many cute balletic moves Messi pulls off, fancy dribbling Neymar performs, or precision passing an attacking offense executes, the true "facts" of the matter is that the sport ends in a tie an obscene amount of the time that no other proper sport encounters, major matches and tournaments are decided by an arbitrary mini-game, referees have more impact on the outcome of a match than in any other sport (because goals are at such a premium), low comeback factor, and predictable scoring lines (a match ends 1-0 like 20% of the time).
The central design of the sport also encourages players to basically lie and cheat in the form of diving to draw penalties (yes, basketball has these same issues, but soccer diving is on a totally different level of cowardly). Tactically and strategically, there's nothing particularly unique about it, either. It's a goal sport (the most unimaginative design for a sport that exists), and thus will have similar gameplay philosophies to field hockey, hockey, bandy, handball, etc. There's just nothing interesting about soccer to those of us raised in countries that have an eclectic sporting culture. The primary reason for its worldwide popularity is that it's the cheapest and most accessible sport to play (British imperialism also helped).
"Viewership, generated cash."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...-to-Popularity
"Murricans need to be more worldly so that their puny, unlightened minds can come to appreciate the beauty of the beautiful game! There's great things out there beyond the shores of your redneck enclave!"
Okay. Tell me which was the greatest, most intense batter/bowler cricket rivalry of the past 30 years? Explain to me, in detail, the difference between T20, ODI, County, and Test cricket. What environmental advantage are the Indians known for, and how do they exploit it? What did the Australian National Cricket team famously do to New Zealand in 1981? (time for you to google)
Who are Raymond Ceulemans, Torbjorn Blomdahl, and Jaspers? Which Belgian in this context shares a name with another famous Belgian sportsman? (more googling).
What type of grounds is Aussie Rules played on? And why is that so? (yet more googling)
Americans don't like soccer, so that means they're close minded about world sports
No, most of don't like soccer because we find it dull, frustrating, and uninteresting, despite many of us giving it multiple chances over the years. You talk about being close-minded, so why don't you try taking the perspective of someone who was raised in a multifaceted sporting culture that doesn't treat soccer with frothing-at-the-mouth cultish devotion. You might gain some new insight, but I'm guessing you lack of the self-awareness for that, so carry on chanting at the village TV watching yet another match that ends in a 0-0 tie.
Why does 99% of humanity consider Tic-Tac-Toe a terribly designed game? Because it ends in a tie a vast majority of the time. Any sport/game that excessively ends in a tie is thought to be poorly designed. Soccer ends in a tie the most out of any major sport, and by a good margin. Ties are evidence of strategic and tactical stagnation and/or evidence of a game design that doesn't allow for a lot of strategic and tactical diversity, meaning it's easier for participants to play optimally more frequently. Now you'll crow on about all the nominally different formations and cute names (Tiki-Taka) to prove soccer is tactically rich (tactics are overrated in soccer. Like any other sport, good players make a bigger different than tactical overthinking), but what limits soccer in this case is that you can't have unlimited subs utions, you can't take a lead from a deficit, and the sport has a relatively short overtime period. Those obstacles box soccer in from a gameplay standpoint.Dismisses post because of "subjective taste" and then goes on to giving his subjective opinion of why soccer is a poorly designed sport.
Mini-games that barely resemble the core game used to decide a match. Agreed, this is probably subjective, since people seem to love the "drama" of a shootout, but when you have to arbitrarily introduce a mini-game to solve your tie problem, then I think we can chalk that up as evidence that your core game needs tweaking.
Official influence. No bones about this. This is objective all the way. No one likes to see any sporting contest decided by refs. Soccer (admittedly along with basketball) is the most egregious offender, and because that's the case, it's incentivized cheap tactics like diving for penalties. Basketball somewhat skirts the issue by being higher scoring, but since goals are so valuable in soccer, one or two bad calls that lead to easy goals aren't likely to be overcome. Hockey handles penalties the best out of any goal sport. You only get a "free" shot at the goal if you're fouled during a clear breakaway (so all the penalty does is recreate the situation the player rightfully earned) and regular penalties are handled by removing a player from the ice for 2-5 minutes. No "free" shots rewarded for situations that probably wouldn't have ended up in a scoring opportunity. Yes, I hate the FT in basketball, as well. Always have. When you have players saying, "My main focus this year is getting to the line more," that's a problem.
I think it's too late for Football. Anti-American sentiment is probably at an all-time high, and soccer loving foreigners reflexively see American football as a symbol of the proverbial "ugly American." I do agree with them about the amount of commercials, though. They have a point there. But their silly "11 minutes of action" criticism is nonsense. Again, they can't seem to understand sports that don't "move around" every second. I wouldn't want football to be continuous. The greatest drama in the game is during pre-snap and contemplating what play will this team run to keep their drive alive.
Americans get the rap for being close minded (as Dfens loves pointing out), but foreigners actually exhibit it more. The modern pro golf and tennis tours were founded by Americans (and they're not American sports). We have a pro soccer league that is somewhat successful to the point where players can at least make a good living. A Canadian sport is the 4th biggest here. Point is, our open mindedness toward sports has allowed a variety of different sports with completely different gameplay styles (everything from flowing, to turn based, to "static") to flourish. Australia is similar, so credit there. UK used to be, but they're completely soccer mad now. But the rest of the soccer loving world (Asia, Indian subcontinent aside) pretty much dismisses out of hand any ball sport that doesn't superficially resemble soccer in some way. Again, why basketball was able to spread.
Ever see those western euros laugh about the protective equipment in football because rugby doesn't have any? Stupidest I ever hear about sports
these hicks are as mad as tbh
for the cretins not seeing the light I'll make it easy, on a per-point bases, so that it can easily enter your thick skulls. Here's why the game is exceptionally designed:
- size, strength and speed aren't critical, anybody skilled enough can be dominant
- exquisite tactics need to be drilled and players need to be intelligent .. ain't commanding robots like in merrycan eggball where you pause ever 10 seconds and issue commands (2 teams because them s are too dumb anyway).
- the game encourages variety and adaptability, last 5 world cup winners all played completely different styles. Just like life, there is no simple win-it-all recipe, you gotta adapt each game/year/tourney.
- intelligence >>> raw athleticism, a game for sportsmen not athletes, for tacticians not hypemen, for civilized people not rednecks.
- just like in life there is no lollygagging, you either take your occasions or they are forever lost. Occasions are rare and you need to work your heart out for them. No easy second chances.
- there is no draft, no handouts, no redistribution of wealth, nothing, it's a man's game -> you lose you get relegated.
- can be played by both rich and poor alike, appealing to both rich and poor cultures (as long as they're not re ed...)
- the game doesn't destroy your body pointlessly, you can play it at the highest level without ending up a comatose disabled toothless mental patient. I know this is especially hard for americans to appreciateYes, it's good to live a healthy life
shocking
There you go you rednecks, you see, football is just like life: tough, unpredictable, always testing and intricate you but also rewarding, democratic, beautiful and intelligent. I know y'all find the last one uninteresting
So now we finally see why you can't appreciate football, because you hicks can't appreciate life, y'all just a bunch of drugged up, obese, re ed, jingoistic, racist, inbred no-life rednecks. Sad but true
tbh this is how you know you dont have a winning argument
If people really wanted it, soccer could easily decide to break ties in different ways, for example: whoever ends up with most chances created wins. Just like boxing, when neither boxer can knockout the other, three folks decide via their subjectivism who was the guy that did more to deserve the win (now, that would be a poorly decided game, if such thinng truly existed on professional sports). But you know why they don't do it? Because soccer it is great just as it is and people around the World don't have this pathological dislike for ties that some Staters seem to have.
Soccer it's a perfectly fine designed sport, you know why? Because it has been around for hundreds of years and the majority of the people love it. In fact, they prefer it over any other sport with a distance. So yeah, I would say that the designer of the sport did pretty well, tbh.
If you don't see the problem with a 0-0 tie game then there is no arguing with you. You just can't be helped.
I do find 0-0 ties boring sometimes. Luckily that happens less than 10% of the time, so not that big of a problem.
I do find problem with sports that drag for about 4 hours and have like just 2 minutes of actual gameplay action. And that happens on 100% of baseball games.
Soccer hasn't existed for hundreds of years. It was first codified in 1863, and actually never existed beforehand in its current particular form (i.e. restricting use to only the feet) as earlier versions of "football" allowed use of hands and any other method to advance the ball and score. And that stupid arbitrary Mario Party minigame wasn't a common feature of soccer until the 70s. It was introduced solely out of spectator/television interest, since it would obviously benefit networks to have a sporting match end at a pre determined time (luckily well designed sports don't have that problem and networks accept the outcome whether they like it or not).
"Pathological hatred of ties."
More like soccer loving foreigners have a credulous acceptance of ties because they can't bring themselves to criticize their beloved sport, which borders on religion. Which other sport ends in a tie 30% of the time?
"Everyone loves soccer, so it must be good."
Appeal to popularity. Everyone also loves McDonalds and Coke, guess they're unequivocally the best hamburger and soda in the world then
American football has less ball in play action than baseball (11 mins to 18 minutes), and you like the former. As I've already stated, equating action/interesting event/situation with "running around" is nonsense. But I do agree that pitchers and batters need to pick up the pace. A 9 inning baseball game should not last 4 hours. Should last around 2/2 and a half hours. But I don't want baseball to resemble Baseball Stars on the NES with 2 to 3 seconds between pitches, either. The relatively slow build up to the delivery of a pitch, especially during a crucial situation, only works to heighten the payoff.
Ever see those western euros laugh about the protective equipment in football because rugby doesn't have any? Stupidest I ever hear about sports
From the horse's mouth:
Martyn Williams, the former Wales international who played in the same position, told the Telegraph: "I would say American Football is more dangerous… there are far more ‘hits’ put on players who are not expecting it. You can fly in without using your arms when attempting tackles, so knees and so on are far more exposed. I believe all that protection makes them feel invincible.”
If it is so damn popular, it can't be that poorly Designed right?Soccer hasn't existed for hundreds of years. It was first codified in 1863, and actually never existed beforehand in its current particular form (i.e. restricting use to only the feet) as earlier versions of "football" allowed use of hands and any other method to advance the ball and score. And that stupid arbitrary Mario Party minigame wasn't a common feature of soccer until the 70s. It was introduced solely out of spectator/television interest, since it would obviously benefit networks to have a sporting match end at a pre determined time (luckily well designed sports don't have that problem and networks accept the outcome whether they like it or not).
"Pathological hatred of ties."
More like soccer loving foreigners have a credulous acceptance of ties because they can't bring themselves to criticize their beloved sport, which borders on religion. Which other sport ends in a tie 30% of the time?
"Everyone loves soccer, so it must be good."
Appeal to popularity. Everyone also loves McDonalds and Coke, guess they're unequivocally the best hamburger and soda in the world then
And btw, there are soccer variations that provide all that you want: higher scoring and lack of ties but nobody watches that because real soccer is infinitely better.
Terrible things have always proven to be popular. Justin Bieber, the current version of Jumanji which has grossed like a billion dollars already, facebook, fast food, the list goes on. Popular things are usually: 1) accessible, 2) easy to understand, 3) require a limited time investment from the consumer (i.e. soccer's breezy 90 minute pace, fast food's quick delivery compared to a proper sit down meal at a restaurant, 2-3 minute catchy pop song).
Now I don't think soccer is necessarily a terrible sport. I just think it's on the 2nd or 3rd tier of sports, and not this mythological, quasi-religious experience its devotees constantly make it out to be. It's a goal sport that ends in a tie 30% of the time with some interesting display of skills now and then. I think ice hockey and even field hockey do that design better.
Yep, I played H.S football and all the gear makes you feel like you can tackle a truck. Without gear everybody would be getting life threatening injuries like when Mo Lewis almost straight up killed Drew Bledsoe
From the horse's mouth:
Again, all those things being bad is strictly subjective.
Soccer being so popular only because it is cheap, has to be one of the more moronic arguments ever. In fact, I'm sure most folks don't even believe it, they just say it to don't concede ground.
There are many sports who are just as cheap (if not cheaper) to play than football, yet they aren't as popular. You know why? Because they aren't as good and/or fun. Why isn't handball as popular, or rugby, or basketball?
And yet with all that protection, many former NFL players end up getting ed up because this supposed greatly designed sport can't be played without receiving life altering hits.Yep, I played H.S football and all the gear makes you feel like you can tackle a truck. Without gear everybody would be getting life threatening injuries like when Mo Lewis almost straight up killed Drew Bledsoe
Last edited by DAF86; 02-13-2018 at 12:46 PM.
So you got a problem with Hockey too, argie?
In the early days, football had such a death problem that the US government considered banning itYep, I played H.S football and all the gear makes you feel like you can tackle a truck. Without gear everybody would be getting life threatening injuries like when Mo Lewis almost straight up killed Drew Bledsoe
I'm not suggesting rugby players aren't tough, but when Euros and the like denigrate NFL players as "pussies," trying to equate gridiron with rugby as if both sports have the same type of contact, I just laugh. The forward pass changed everything, making football a faster, harder hitting game (not to mention special teams, where players have 60 yards to reach full speed and hit). Rugby does have its share of big hits, but they aren't on the level of an over-the-middle blindside and the like.
Same as when MMA fans think MMA is inherently more dangerous than boxing because they don't use "soft" gloves. In fact, boxing is more dangerous since knockouts are less frequent and boxers endure more continuous punishment to the head and body, when in MMA, a knockout is usually one or two punch quick.
After reviewing post-fight medical examination records from more than 1,180 M.M.A. combatants and 550 boxers over 10 years researchers at the University of Alberta in Canada reported that M.M.A. fighters end up with minor injuries such as contusions, bruises, bloody noses and facial cuts at higher rates than boxers, while boxers are more likely to suffer from more serious injuries such as concussions, loss of consciousness, broken noses and bones, and eye injuries including retinal detachment. Boxers were also more likely to receive longer post-fight medical suspensions than M.M.A. athletes.
I don't have a strong opinion either way. Ice hockey doesn't even get TV time here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote