Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports' started by Formula1racer, Jul 21, 2003.
What I meant is that you can share skills. Both skills can be used in both sports.
i do apoligize curveball, i see what you are saying.. and you make a valid point . but you might be a great punter in american football , but be crap at football.. vice versa..
do you think the atmsphere , crowd wise , is the same at both sports . because i'v never been to an american football match
I only mentioned that because one of my friends plays soccer and is an awesome punter.
I'm probably guessing that American football has a bigger crowd. Only because it costs $1,000,000 for 30 seconds of commercial time in the Superbowl.
I do love the irony of a 0-0 tie in soccer, but I'd rather watch a game of American football. Spain, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Portugal, Brazil and Argentina don't watch it because they are no good at it. Watching American football is like poerty to the senses.
You do realize that every person outside of the United States and Canada plays soccer, right? You've got to be kidding if you think American football has a bigger audience.
whats so Ironic about it?
Europe does have the World Football League.
I said I was guessing.
Maybe irony was the wrong word. It's a waste of ninety minutes when no one scores.
i didn't mean tv audiences, i meant is the atmosphere as intense at an american football game? in football the singing hardky stop and people have a Passion for their team..
When the world cup matches were on I did watch a little of them, but, while there was some enjoyment, and I'm not a big fan of US version football, I do prefer it to football. Also, I don't care about padding, which is an issue brought up to argue the superiority of other sports. Being "blessed" with the image of men in shorts bashing each other with little to no padding, as is the cae in rugby, apparently helps makes the sport great. Perhaps, but the potential for injury is undoubtedly increased. I'd be interested in seeing a statistic on injuries between US football and rugby.
As for football, it looks messy, haphazard. I've tried, though my mental capacity is too weak for it, to learn to play chess. I believe that American football is more analogous to chess than football is. In A. football, you must reset your players and guide them through much of every play, but in football, while you may set up the play, the duration that one play can continue on for makes the sport look like a ping pong match, and eventually moves beyond coach's strategy. There are probably a lot of examples one could come up with about strategy in football, but it still looks like ping pong.
sorry to use your quote here , but it's just i am asking on another thread why americans like stats so damn much? see the stat your requesting.. if it was related to football (soccer ) the answer would be , just look at the guys faces.. rugby players have more scars all over there face , you never see an american football player with half an ear.. ect ect... WHY DO YOU GUYS RELY SO MUCH ON STATS?? OPEN YOUR EYES !!!
Because it relates to my interest in which sport is safer. Have you had too much coffee? Americans are stat obsessed? Since when? Do you claim a team's superiority based on which have the fewest total teeth?
"Oy, that buggers missing an ear. Either theres some bloody good players on that team or that bloomin' Tyson's playing football now."
dont be silly.. i was just giving you an example to your question about which sport had more injuries.. looking at the players its easy to tell who has more injuries.. let it be known that im not saying that makes rugby players any better i am merely proving my point that without stats americans could not come to the simplest of conclusions about their sport.. lets be honest if you need a stat to tell you if rugby has more or less injuries than american football then you dont have a clue..
oh i cant remember saying that because someone had half an ear it made them better, i remember saying that shows which sport has more injuries.. my point here is stats remember nothing to do with any particular sport
Your last sentence is difficult to decipher. And my last post was meant as a joke. And I'm not clueless for asking about that stat. Of course the potential is greater. What the stat would tell me is the historical evidence of which sport is more dangerous. Yes, rugby is still more dangerous.
sorry it should read... my point here is stats remember, not any particular sport... meaning i'm just comparing soccer to most US sports and the differences in the amount of stats used .. and find that in US sports they are abundant... i mean there are stats for everything a player does in your sports.. "this guy can spit 29.256 feet on average ..." no offence just keeping it light hearted..
sorry to sound so defensive...
when the score is 0-0, its not a waste of time because points are still allocated for a non-score draw...if you need points to win in a league then 0-0 still gets you one piont...which is better than getting no points for a defeat...
quite often you'll hear football managers say that they are playing for a draw....0-0 or 1-1 etc....its the same...because if you get a small team playing against the league champions and the score is 0-0 at least the small team goes away with 1 point from the match and the champs are deprived of thier 3 points from a potential win which could affect the title race if thier opponents are winning all thier matches....
so a 0-0 draw could have quite an impact on a title race between two clubs that are seperated by one 1 point near the end of a season,....which happens all the time..
True, there are bucketloads of useless stats. One for example is the most assists by a rookie right fielder in the month of June. There are also a lot of useful stats. In baseball, you have useful stats for pitchers like WHIP, ERA, Saves, Complete Games. For a batter, important stats are batting average, slugging percentage, runs, RBI, etc.
The useful stats far outweigh the useless stats.
there is no such thing as a 'useful stat' theyre too easy to manipulate and dont inform you of the true picture...
call me old fashioned, but why dont the two teams just play the game and see who wins? who cares how many burgers the fat guy had before the match or the percetage of his goals were scored when less than 10,000 people were in the staduim..?
BTW Im american and i dont care about stats. and to prove the point stats dont mean anything: say Rinaldo has 3 goals in a game. (Sorry to use his name for my point). if he the opponent is awful like say. . .Leeds united. Jk then it doesnt mean anything, he could still suk. but if they were to play an awsome team, then thats a whole other story. and Rinaldo doesn't suk i was just sayin.
Heh, I hate to be picky here, but it's 'Ronaldo'. At first I thought you just had made a typo since the "I" and "O" are next to each other on the keyboard, but when I saw you type it twice the same way I thought I'd let you know.
As for soccer and football... I wouldn't know how to compare them to a point where I can have a close battle on which beats the other. Both do involve teams rushing down a field to score points (or goals) they both need strategy. Football has a slower pace and more strategy involved, in fact football wouldn't be football without some sort of structure on a team's side.
In soccer, it really really helps when you have some kind of plays mapped out and you better be quick about performing them because the ball is always rolling. You can wing it sometimes, but not all the time. There is much more tension and speed involved in the plays done in football however.
Personally, I enjoy soccer more than football. Soccer at an international level however, or at least UEFA soccer team matches, they put on some great shows too.
oh mate, i couldnt say it better.
out of all the different codes of football in the world RUGBY LEAGUE IS KING
GO THE BRISBANE BRONCOS FOR SEASON 2004
rugby league sucks, there are no rucks...boring, and tehy look like fish out of water wen they start wriggling about after they are btackled..UNION RULES! american football is pointless, some guys go a career without touching teh ball, and the hardly kick. Also soccer aint teh physical but is a bit
I have a different opinion about the two sports in context. I love to watch Soccer, because I almost feel like I am in the game, after playing it for 13 odd years. The games have a non-stop movement, which keeps me entertained, plus the announcers are usually speaking with different accents and it's quite interesting to see what they say.
I do not like watching American Football, because every ten seconds they stop movement, go into a huddle, and John Madden talks. I am usually more interested in watching the news. Then after you see about 4 or 5 downs, they cut to a comercial. Then, to even further the delay of game, they usually add in a dance in the middle of it. Some people really are desperate for viewer ratings when they need to add some almost naked women jumping around to get people interested. That was a hateful remark, but I won't recall it, because it is just an opinion.
prob is with american football, unlike in soccer wen teh stats are kept mainly 2 half time talks, in american football the guys dont stop going on about it.
Also about an earlier comment wiht soccer kickers being good punters, it would prob be more appropiate to compare them 2 rugby kickers. And i have heard that tehre may be a future for jonny Wilkinson in american football(he is england rugby world cup winning kicker)
the pay would prob be better
it works though
I guess, but I would rather watch a sport because I like the sport, not because some hot chick with almost no clothes is jumping up and down. Just my opinion.
Thank you Sheron, for backing me up. I didn't know if I was the only one who likes watching soccer.
I love watching soccer...
its Celtic vs Lyon this week.....the poor frenchies are gonna be played off the pitch..