Football (why do the the yanks insist on calling it soccer?)

[Dauphin]

Rugby has those aspects. So why do you say it is less strategic in that sense.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by faded glory



The concept of pads and helmets for one. I can name a few others. But thats good enough.

I watched Aussie rules football. That is some serouis stuff. I think the average of the players careers is less than 10 years!

What has that got to do with rugby?

And how does dressing up in excessive equipment make it more civilized. They could dress up in full body armour, how would that imply being more civilized?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rugby has those aspects. So why do you say it is less strategic in that sense.

Cause rugby doesn't have the intricate plans that sometimes resemble war plans in their detail .

And how does dressing up in excessive equipment make it more civilized. They could dress up in full body armour, how would that imply being more civilized?

The reason the equipment is there is because in the 1900-1905, there were many fatalities in American Football. President Roosevelt threatened to ban the game if it wasn't made more safe.

[Dauphin]

But that does not make it more civilised than any other sport. Just less dangerous than IT used to be.

[Arrian]

I think GP's referring to the set piece plays in American football. Insane amounts of time are spent dreaming up all sorts of variants of passing and running plays. Rugby has strategy too, no doubt, but given the fluid, fast-paced nature of the game, it seems more tactical than strategic.

I'm not getting in the middle of this debate. I don't really enjoy either game much. Baseball (yeah, Rounders to you, Sag), Soccer and Ice Hockey for me.

-Arrian

[TCO]

You're fast today, finance-weenie. Of course. You should note that I said ALL team sports have that aspect.

It's a 2 by 2 matrix. Strategic choices is one axis. Physical demands and leadership is the other axis.

I assert that Football is high, high. Computer games are high, low. Rugby is medium, high.

The turn-like nature of football, the intermediate objectives (first downs), the greater specialization of players, the more complicated plays, more complex rules, make football more strategic in nature (IMHO). Not meant as a slam or anything.

Rugby is a fun sport. As a participant, I actually like it better. I just don't think it's as strategically rich as football. Maybe you're letting your "cultural pride" sway you a little here...

[Dauphin]

Baseball is an acceptable term, given how there are actually bases and a ball, and they are the centre piece of the game.

Rounders is to Baseball as Handmelon is to American Football.

[Dauphin]

Maybe you're letting your "cultural pride" sway you a little here...

Just making you work for your claim.

Strategic choices is one axis. Physical demands and leadership is the other axis

In that case Cricket has AF beat hands down.

[Imran Siddiqui]

American football has to be better than Rugby anyway. Why? Because it is a turn based game .

[Imran Siddiqui]

In that case Cricket has AF beat hands down.

physical demands

Leadership, perhaps.

[Dauphin]

It was sarcasm. I take it you've never seen England play?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
American football has to be better than Rugby anyway. Why? Because it is a turn based game .

So is Rugby League. Five tackles and the opposition is given their turn.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, yes... but only to fall asleep at night .

[TCO]

Can't comprehend cricket. (silly insect sport.) Still need to get a better explanation of it.

Dated a girl who's brother was asked to try out for some England team or something. Like a dodo, he went off to play in SA instead and when he got back they weren't interested in him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So is Rugby League. Five tackles and the opposition is given their turn.

That isn't a turn! That's a new mission in a RTS. You go real time until you get tackled 5 times, and then move on.