Objectively speaking, soccer is an inferior spectator sport...

[Odin]

"American Rugby"

[Kontiki]

The English just like their sports to be enormously boring. I mean the average cricket game takes what, three weeks to play? And almost every player on the field at any given time could just curl up and take a nap and it wouldn't make a difference to the actual game, or the excitement factor for that matter.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Kontiki
The English just like their sports to be enormously boring. I mean the average cricket game takes what, three weeks to play? And almost every player on the field at any given time could just curl up and take a nap and it wouldn't make a difference to the actual game, or the excitement factor for that matter.

[DanS]

Originally posted by C0ckney
the (main) thing that i really dislike about american sports is that they are so stop-start. you get 30 seconds of play (if you're lucky) and then 2 minutes of them fannying about, then another 30 seconds of play, and so on and so forth for hours on end.

That's a valid criticism, and has all to do with the forward pass done poorly and good pass defenses. A game where the teams are completing 65% or 70% of their passes or where they run every play moves very quickly and has proper flow. As stated, the forward pass is the best innovation in football.

However, in order to be that proficient with the pass, you need a playbook the size of a desk encyclopedia, excellent timing, and proper fundamentals. It's difficult to do, and we're just now seeing offenses that are capable of doing this (West Coast, Spread Option, and Spread). But even in the pros, it's not often done, especially since pro defenses are so good.

On the other hand, soccer even in the Premier League is not often uniformly of good quality and there are only flashes of real excitement.

[Asher]

There needs to be a balance between scoring too much (basketball) and scoring too little (soccer).

There needs to be a balance between having the game always on (soccer) and one with way too much general downtime and inactvity of 99% of the players (Baseball) and one with way too much stoppage of play (Football).

The game, my friends, is hockey.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Asher
There needs to be a balance between scoring too much (basketball) and scoring too little (soccer).

There needs to be a balance between having the game always on (soccer) and one with way too much general downtime and inactvity of 99% of the players (Baseball) and one with way too much stoppage of play (Football).

The game, my friends, is hockey.

Hockey:

[Imran Siddiqui]

Though, I think most of this discussion is going to be moot. If the US wins the World Cup, there will be sooo many soccer fans, it'll be crazy. People will be saying they backed the US way back in Italia '90 and crap. If nothing else, American sports fans like to jump on the bandwagon (look at the ratings when the US Woman's team was in the finals... and won.. the Woman's World Cup in the Rose Bowl).

[Atahualpa]

"Objectively speaking"
@ Sava's pictures

FIFA Football is fun only when the teams are good. World championship or European Championship are among the most interesting sport events and I follow them closely. Apart from that and especially when the teams are bad (like ours) I have to agree that football is boring.

Still football is surely an entertaining game to play. And I have to agree indoor football is very very fast paced. Almost like Hockey. I played it once and was completely down, breathing hard and tasting blood after just 5 minutes. Though generally I cannot agree to "the faster the better"-crowd here and I don't find Hockey that interesting. I like slower build-ups better.

I don't know much about NFL football except what you hear from american sitcoms and movies. Surely, I wouldn't be interested watching a game for 4 hours though.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Theben
And the only thing it requires is wearing a pair of shorts so that players can boff each other on the field w/o having to undress. In this it does indeed match basketball.

You got an issue with shorts? Do you rather prefer quite possibly the ugliest garment in the history of humanity, namele "tights"? Christ, that's the kind of pants that female heroin junks wear and you got an issue with shorts?

[The Mad Viking]

Without getting into this particular debate, I will try to illustrate why the notion of "objectively speaking" is particularly fallacious to this sort of evaluation.

I live in Canada.

Amidst the most rabid hockey fans in the world.

The vast majority of whom are absolutely convinced that BASKETBALL, (NCAA, NBA whatever) is "objectively speaking" an inferior spectator sport.

I rest my case.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Theben
Why would we call football 'soccer'? They're 2 completely different sports.

Silly Euros.

Because unlike American rugby, you actually got a ball that's mostly played by foot in football. Whatever rugbyplayer came up with idea of usurping the name, logic probably wasn't his forte.

[Sikander]

I played soccer for decades at a high level, but I have to agree with those who would rather watch football than soccer on television. Football is just such a fantastic sport, so much happening in such a short time, and the violence is on the field where it belongs and prodigious. I prefer to watch with my expert hand on the remote in order to switch betweeen the games whenever there is a timeout.

[Footie Mad]

This whole thing moves in cycles, the north americans start with "sissy soccer" and europeans go "sissy handmelon" and then it's on with pictures and witty one liners. Why not dig up an old thread, read it, and be done with it?

I think the only major team sport both sides can agree somewhat on is ice hockey, but then the rest of the world cares nothing of it.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Colon


Because unlike American rugby, you actually got a ball that's mostly played by foot in football. Whatever rugbyplayer came up with idea of usurping the name, logic probably wasn't his forte.

It is because back in the day in the US the two sports were called "Rugby Football" and "Association Football", both sometimes contracted to RUGGER and SOCCER. As Rugby evolved into American Football, it exloded in popularity compared to soccer, and soon just began to be called "football" as it and Rugby went thier seperate ways.

[alva]

The English invented the rules of football, but does anyone know who invented the game?

The chinese did some 35000 years BC.


...and it's called football