Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports' started by Brainhulk, Jun 15, 2010.
I hope this world cup increases the coverage of "Soccer" in the USA.
Soccer has plenty of coverage. It will never be as popular as the NFL in America though. The NFL is the pinnacle of talent for the sport. The MLS certainly isn't the top talent. The best soccer will always be in Europe, so the American market will never embrace it.
I prefer Canadian football but I'll vote for American Football. I don't have anything against Football/Soccer, I just never really got into it, whereas I really do love American Football. Fun sport to play and watch. I'm sure for somebody who has grown up with Football/Soccer, they would say the same, but I just never got in to soccer.
I also think both sports get a bad rap from fans of the other sport. People who are fans of only American Football often call soccer a sport for "wusses, pansies, etc", while fans of Football call American Football a sport for "wussies, pansies, etc." because of the pads.
Both sports are great, and incredibly strategic, but I'm partial to American Football, probably because I play it, and because it gets more exposure here in Canada.
Is it true that NFL has an advert at every stop in play?
Lots of ads, but not anywhere near every stoppage in play. Even for the super bowl, the pinnacle of television advertising, the ads aren't that bad.
Out of the two, I'd pick American Football to watch or play, soccer isn't bad but it's just not for me, it just reminds me of a slower version of hockey with little contact.
Hockey is my true passion, whether it be playing or watching. We used to play every single day after school for pretty much as long as I can remember. Even now at 24, I'd say I get about 12 hours or so per week on the rink.
Moved to the correct forum.
Oh, and I don't prefer either, and I like to watch both. They're 2 completely different sports that just happen to share a name. American football or Rugby would be a more apt comparison.
This is very true. There are almost no similarities between the two sports.
I'd say soccer shares a lot more with hockey than it does with football, and even those two are very different.
I prefer football, however I don't feel qualified to make that decision since I have never watched/played american football. But there is nowhere to play it near where I live.
Usually just with a change of possession or a time out.
I think that when there's a really good game on, soccer is more fun to watch. But when there are two teams that I don't care about and it's not a great game, I can hardly sit through a game of soccer. But football is always fun to watch for me.
I like American Football better, but by no means does it mean it's a better sport. Not sure why they are compared so much as the only things they have in common are that they have the same name and are played on a field. There is no was any NFL player would be able to compete in a UEFA game and no football player would be able to compete in an NFL game(other than a kicker).
Side Note: Before this argument even comes up, when American Football was first conceived there was alot more emphasis on kicking the ball, hence the name football.
I'd say the worst thing is the stupid over-exaggerations on both sides of the argument.
Soccer fan- "A bunch of dumb 385 lb fat guys running into eachother"
American Football fan- "A bunch of pansies always pretending to get hurt"
Which one? Hockey or Ice hockey?
[Can of worms]
Ice/Inline, of course. I actually thought about clarifying this but didn't. Around here field hockey is almost nonexistent, so it's just assumed that hockey is referring to ice hockey. I'm sure it's the same in Canada as well.
Definitely very different games though, field hockey seems more similar to soccer than it does to ice hockey IMO.
And in much of the rest of the world, hockey is field hockey and ice hockey is ice hockey - much like soccer/football.
Hockey is similar to football in that there's 11 players on the pitch. That's. About. It.
Field hockey balls and ice hockey pucks weigh about the same amount - 5.5oz - and move at about the same speed - 85mph is an average hit in the amateur field hockey game. The only protection most players have is a pair of shinpads (like football, I suppose!) except the goalkeeper who looks like he's shagging a mattress. Field hockey also adds the third dimension to play - aerial balls are quite common.
You're also not allowed to punch people, unlike ice hockey, but there is quite some violence in field hockey - though it's a much more "gentlemanly" game than most. My wife pegged a guy over in training yesterday and I told her off afterwards. Not for pegging him over but, because no foul was blown, for apologising and helping him up. What she should have done was carried on playing and then apologised and helped him up. And then have a laugh about it over a pint afterwards.
I'd be willing to bet there's more bruises per person after a regular game of hockey where no-one is even sent off than a regular game of ice hockey. And fewer bruised egos.
As in no substitutions? That's pretty impressive if so.
Depending on how I play, the shift times vary for us. If I'm playing inline, which is 4v4 plus goalies instead of the normal 5 in ice, there are only usually 2 lines and we take 3-4 minute shifts which are usually a full on sprint, with only 4 players per team and no offsides like there is in ice hockey one must be moving constantly. The protective equipment in inline for a skater is relatively minimal too; just shin pads, a jock, gloves, and a helmet. No shoulder pads, protective shorts, or elbow pads.
5 on 5 ice carries shorter shifts and more players on each team, but each shift is definitely more physically taxing as there is the added element of checking.
Fighting is pretty much nonexistant in either form besides in the professional leagues, and carries a hefty penalty in most amateur/high school/college competition. The only fight I ever got into during a game carried a 3 game suspension.
I'm sure both have their fair share of injuries. Personally speaking, I've suffered 2 concussions, broke each ankle once, my right wrist twice, and my left wrist once all from hockey. All injuries besides one of the concussions were sustained in the supposedly "non-contact" inline hockey.
Sounds like field hockey is more similar than I imagined it to be though.
No, as in no-one sent from the field of play for illegal conduct (what you would term a "power play"). I've never received even the lowest level of card in a game, and I broke a guy's foot once.
There are three levels of card in hockey:
Green - Caution for illegal conduct.
Yellow - 5 minute expulsion; Team must play with one fewer players during this period; Mandatory if a second green is shown to the same player.
Red - Permanent expulsion; Team must play with one fewer players until the end of the match; Mandatory if a second yellow is shown to the same player. Usually accompanied by a lengthy suspension from the sport (in the order of years).
I've been playing hockey 20 years and I've never had a green - and I've only ever seen five yellows issued. I've only ever heard of two reds (amusingly both to the same player, the second in his return to the game after 2 years suspended).
But, as above, it's not as if it's a non-contact sport. It's a given that with a 5.5oz ball moving at an average of 70mph between players and people waving 3 foot lumps of wood/carbonfibre about, you're going to be contacted. I got knocked out once - wasn't the other guy's fault and not even a foul was called (quite rightly).
Field hockey is 11 vs. 11 with a maximum of 4 rolling substitutes. Matches are 70 minutes split into two 35 minute halves. We don't get helmets, boxes/cups or gloves (except the 'keeper. He gets all of those plus throat guard, shoulder pads, chest guard, back pads, padded shorts, leg pads [like cricket] and kickers [foam foot protectors] - a good keeper can move almost as fast as you can and will go for your legs. It's like being run over by a freight train).
I've broken several bones. Embarrassingly, none while playing hockey. Well, none of my own at any rate.
Makes footballers look like a bunch of prancing primadonnas.
Oh, and never play hockey against women. I learned this in school. Many men have never learned this and think women would be easy to beat and that hockey - like lacrosse - is a girls' sport anyway. I've seen enough lacrosse to chuckle at this mindset.
The first game of hockey I ever player, I broke my hand, I carried on playing but my hand soon resembled an amorphous blob with 5 sausages poking out of it. I found that hitting the ball hard with a naff stick hurt enough as it was, without a broken hand. I struggled to get into hockey after that, its no good playing a stick and ball game, if you are scared of both the sticks and the ball.
Does American football have 2.63 billions of fans watching world wide??
Don't confuse popularity with quality. Is Justin Bieber really the best musician ever
On the hockey vs hockey topic, I just googled the Field Hockey goalie equipment (I'm a goalie in Ice Hockey), and it looks pretty cool. I think if there were a decent field hockey league around here I would maybe try to get into it. But I'm still obviously partial to ice hockey, I just love the thrill of the game, and the boards add an awesome element to the game.
I used to play hockey regularly and the only time I ever saw a card was for calling the umpire a (needless to say it was red). I too have broken a foot and ribs whilst playing with no repurcussions for the offender. One of my jobs involved standing on the post for a short (penalty) corner and basically charging the guy who was about to drag-flick a ball at head height at about 90mph in my direction - you either run very fast ir you lose some teeth (or worse!!). In my opinion, hockey is a much faster and intense game than football. Ice hockey is another kettle of fish, I'm sure its hard work but they don't stay on the pitch (ice) for long compared to a 70 minute game of full on running on a very big pitch.
EDIT: like Famine said, mixed hockey most dangerous game ever!!
Can't stand soccer. One of the things I hate about soccer (and hockey err... ice hockey) is the lack of progress. Back and forth and back and forth. You see an attack - doesn't work... another attack - doesn't work... another attack - doesn't work. Back and forth. Progress is nowhere to be found.
Football (American Football) is all about claiming territory. The attackers slowly and methodically eat up territory until they've pushed the defensive unit back off the field. You see the progress, and when they gain yardage, they gain it semi-permanently. Sure the other guys can reclaim it, but that's 1 more yard they have to somehow reclaim before they can score.
I think for the game to maintain interest, it's best if you can expect ~5-7 scores per game. That's another reason I dislike soccer (and by extension, ice hockey). Not enough scoring. Basketball on the otherhand has way too much scoring. They have so much scoring in basketball that you can actually start to see progress, even though the game is fluid like soccer. The progress is in the scoreboard. But I still prefer scores to be less frequent.
Yet another reason I prefer American football to all of the above is the various types of talent on the field at any given time. It's all the same body type in soccer, hockey, and basketball (with minor variations). In football you have the sumo match in the trenches, the sure-footed stout running back who needs to shrug tackles, the tall, fragile, cerebral quarterback who is orchestrating the play, the sprinter/jumper wide receivers, and the sprinter/tackler safeties... oh and there's a kicker.
Soccer players would probably play secondary defense on a football team. Basketball players are wide receivers. Rugby players are running backs. Sumo wrestlers are on the line, tennis players might be quarterbacks, and kickers are a cross between golfers and ballerinas.
Watching an American Football game is a bit like watching all of those sports going on simultaneously while coupled with brutal tackles, diving catches, a good scoring system, and warlike territorial acquisition. I consider it to be the ultimate team sport.
Soccer/Football history...from a very....hmmm...interesting Teacher:
Purely from a viewer's perspective I agree with you...football(American) is the best game to watch from home for me.
Even though I play(Ice/inline) hockey 12+ hours per week, and have never in my life played football beyond the back yard variety, if the Maple Leafs (fav hockey team) and the Steelers were playing at the same time I'd watch the Steelers game. That said, if I had a choice to attend a game in person, I'd choose the hockey game, simply because television makes football more fun to watch and hockey less fun to watch.
I don't think ice hockey and soccer translate well to television like football does, and it's sometimes very difficult to see plays develop unless you are physically at the arena.
Baseball is the one sport I can never enjoy watching. Maybe it's because I'm from the home of the Pirates (17 straight losing seasons now!), but it just bores the hell out of me, always has.
out of the major sports that are popular around here it goes like this for me.
I actually quite like American football, although I would say I prefer soccer.
My main issue with American football, is how stop-start the game is. It's a few seconds burst of play, and then immediately snapping out of character, and ambling around for a bit until play resumes. With such stopping and starting, there is little fluidity to the game and thus I can find it hard to get into if its not an engaging match. Then there are the advertisement breaks (which I am convinced are the reason behind each break in play taking so long), these contribute to stop-start feeling of the game and break the excitement and tension up too much for me.
While it is is a 90 minute game just like soccer, these breaks in play can make matches last two or three hours, which means half of the time I'm watching nothing happen. Sure tactics, and plays are discussed but it really starts to drag on - and then I am hit with another advert.
The best thing about American football for me (apart from the tackles) is how territorial it is, grinding yards out and gaining land. It reminds me of 'capture the flag' style games I used to play on video games. The closer you get to the scoring, the more the opponents start to dig in and try and push you back, and you need to use you're head to gain that final bit of distance required to win.
I can understand why people don't soccer, if both teams adopt defensive strategies, the ball just goes back and forward in the midfield without ever really threatening either goal, its likely that both teams will go a full 90 minutes without even scoring and it can make for very tedious viewing. What I enjoy about soccer from a viewing perspective, is that while goal tally's are often low, a goal can materialise out of seemingly nowhere and this can completely change the game. A team can be on top and dominating but at only 1-0 up, the other team can easily score an equaliser in a moment, despite being against the run of play. This adds the unpredictability to a game, and its the sort of thing you don't tend to see in games like basketball which you highlighted. Since basketball is such a high scoring game, how well you're team is playing is almost defined by the scoreline, this is less likely to be the case in low scoring games such as soccer. While this is obviously most rewarding to the better team, it takes a certain amount of unpredictability out of the game, which is why I don't find basketball too interesting to watch.
I don't get to see all that much American football, but the stuff I do get to watch is all at the top level. It's obviously a game that is great from a commercial perspective, all the breaks in in play are a great time for an advert. In fact, part of me gets the feeling, that the long breaks in play are intentionally there to boost advertising revenue and bring more money to the game, or then again, perhaps its just me being a cynical person. If it is the case however, I can't really blame the organizing body for making that decision. If that is the case though, I suspect I would derive more enjoyment from an amateur event, which would surely be less commercially driven and hopefully as a result, a bit less stop start.
I agree Dan, I consider football (American) the ultimate team sport. Personally, I play guard on the O-Line, and I know how frustrating it is when I do my job and a prima-donna running back tries to change the play. So frustrating. A couple weeks ago while I was playing with my school team, I had to open the 2 hole for the RB. I had a big DT across from me, and I managed to reach block him out of the hole. I looked up, to see the running back ignore what I'd just done, and run all the way around the outside and get smashed by a linebacker behind the line of scrimmage
Football is a very team oriented game. Say what you want about soccer, hockey, golf, tennis, whatever. Football is the most strategic sport. All 11 (12 if you're Canadian) players have a specific job. The sport gets a lot of flack for being "slow" and having too many stops "so the fat guys can rest", but during a play, Football is one of, if not the fastest sport there is. It's not like hockey or soccer where you can just hold the ball/puck in front of your net. Everyone has to be moving. It really is a great sport.
I don't think I'd watch a Hamilton Tigercats (favourite CFL team) game over a Montreal Canadiens game, but I'd watch any other football game over any other ice hockey game (besides maybe a really good NHL playoff game).
The best football league ever IMO would be NFL players because they're simply the best, playing CFL rules football, but with 4 downs, and eliminate the single point for a missed field goal landing in the end zone.
CFL rules + NFL players + 4 downs= best. sport. ever.
I much prefer football (Soccer) over football (hand egg ), I can see the merits of American football but I find it annoying to watch. It seems to be more about the the statistics and organising in the breaks in play than the actual play itself and that defeats the object of spectator enjoyment to me personally. I want to see the play not the discussing of tactics. Football is far more fluid, it still a very tactical game but I think it relies more on individual talents than American football which is probably the more team focused of the two. But that said, in football if players aren't doing their jobs then the team suffers. People saw it yesterday in the England match all game, Lennon was played as a winger (as he is) and he didn't once reach the by-line and cut a cross in behind the defense which is something a winger should be trying to do from time to time. Instead he was constantly cutting inside the field and running himself out of space. He didn't single handedly cause England to not win yesterday, there were plenty of players not playing well or not doing their jobs right in that game but as an example Lennon by constantly cutting in conflicted with the style of play Capello uses (he didn't take Walcott because he wouldn't stay on the wing) and probably cost England chances regardless of them begin taken or not. There is a big team aspect of football but as I said I think individual ability comes into it more than American football, one moment of individual brilliance can win the game if the two teams are canceling each other out but I love the fluidity of it. I appreciate the skills involved in both games though.
Probably not because ive never heard of the guy before...
So the hole World elects football (soccer or whatever...) to be the favourite sport and you guys say its not quite?! Hmm I wounder about that! So not invented in the US means not quite? I see you guys point... actually i dont understand why i get surprised everytime Americans say something similar! Ive known many in my job... a few thousands, and i realized maybe 70 to 80% (+ or -) are too patriotic, like to... pretty much everything!
I say Football is better in everyway than American football, Hockey and Baseball all put togheter! And thats, pretty much a fact.
Don't confuse patriotism with quality!
I don't know if it is patriotism since the Americans didn't really invent American football , it's suspected that football existed back in Roman times. More recently football was divided into rugby and soccer (football) and American football was derived from rugby. Rugby though is closer to the original game of football played before the game split into two different rule sets. Rugby used to be played in America but known as football still, back in the day (you know, the day), some decided that they wanted their own version of the rules and over time the rules changed a bit, and a bit more and eventually they had American football. In that sense the Americans did invent American football, I was only being difficult but the origin of American football is rugby and the origin of rugby is football (the old football)
I like Football, but Football is really boring.