Why America Hates Football (a.k.a. Soccer)

Cricket is for wimmin. Wink

http://www.pacificislandbooks.com/JPEGS/kula%20cricket.jpg

0 Replies

A man that obviously loves baseball, describing football as "mind numbingly dull".....

Interesting.

Football can be dull if you don't appreciate the skill involved in what you're watching.

I think you could say the same thing about nearly any sport. Just ask the average woman.

I think the reason you guys don't get into football is because, generally, you want gratification rather than anticipation. Aussies are similar, except we will watch ANYTHING. Even if it is dull and especially if we can bet on it.

0 Replies

Thanks for your post, Fbaezer. Baseball, basketball and football, and to a lesser extent, hockey retain their popularity in the U.S. and Canada precisely because one or the other of them become Religion II to the denizens of small towns all over the continent. The Tejanos are so obsessed with football that there are special leagues for small towns which can't field an eleven man team, and therefore play special rules for smaller teams. In small town Indiana (which begins at the city limits of Indianapolis and ends at the respective borders), basketball is Religion I, with christianity running a close but decidedly dull second. In Chicago, they play a variant of softball, 16" softball, without gloves, and are obsessive to a fault about it. I've twice broken fingers playing 16" softball, and i'm not even from Chicago (a New Yorker should have known better)--oh, and i held onto the ball and made the play both times, as well. In a bizarre variant on this theme, the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin, owns their professional football team, and the level of hysterical fanaticism is beyond that of even the Tejanos. I met boys in the Army from Minnesota who displayed absolutely no interest in organized sports--until that rare event in the -60's and -70's occurred, the broadcast of a hockey game. They made great sport of me because i didn't know how to skate (which they swore they learned almost as soon as they walked), despite my pointing out that i was 23 before i ever saw it snow in Virginia. In the streets of residential Toronto, little brown boys and girls, the Canadian-born children of immigrants from the Islands and Latin America, play "hockey" in the streets in the summertime with roller blades, a stick and a tennis ball--you have to watch out for them when you drive the quiet streets.

Isn't sports obsession a wonderful thing?

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

More reasons why Americans don't like football as much as other countries:

Caralho! Damn good post as per usual.

Quote:

1. It's hard to keep statistical records for both teams and individuals.

Very good point. Like any decent American I'm a stats freak and there's not much in way of footy stats.

Quote:

On baseball we have runs, rbis, era, batting average, slugging, fielding average, home runs/ at bats, wild pitches per inning, you name it. In American football, passing yards, running yards, complete pass percentage, sacks per game, etc. What does football have of statistical importance, besides goals?... maybe passes for goal, cornerkicks, time of possesion... not very important. Can we keep statistical record of dribbles, of phantom plays, of choosing the correct play in the precise moment?

I've seen steals, passing percentage (success rate, of which some brilliant people like Redondo have over 90%), saves, tackles, assists, goals (of course) free kick accuracy percentages, on target percentage, and a host of other metrics tracked.

So it's possible, even if the sport isn't really a statician's ideal. Thing is, the nations that like footy don't seem to care about statistics too much. <shrugs>

They may even go so far as to call it dull. Shocked

Quote:

Americans' love of statistics keeps many of them from understanding the game throughly.

So damn true, it's harder to access talent, and makes it more like accessing art than a stat-based sport.

Quote:

2. Americans love to score. That's also why they prefer the other flowing game, basketball.
A goal in football is like an orgasm.

So damn true. Basketball is my favorite sport (because of the scoring and "air-play" but footy's goals are made more special precisely because of the rarity. An orgasm is a good analogy.

0 Replies

Adrian: I'd take Australian Rules Football any day over soccer, and I don't even understand half of the things going on.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I don't think I was going entirely for mirth, but I think we all need to keep in mind that discussions regarding the relative merits of rival sports is about as grave and serious as discussions regarding the relative abilities of the discussants' fathers to beat one another up.

I agree, really serious stuff.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Ultimately, it just has more to do with circumstance than the sport itself.

I think that has a lot to do with it, but we can't ignore the sport itself. Pro badminton has never really taken off in the US either.

Hmm, I vaguely recall it being popular in some Asian countries I've lived in, dunno if that's a valid memory. But if so, it would seem that despite the sport some like it.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Golf and baseball are very boring to many of the nations that like soccer. Football is far more confusing than soccer's rules.

If the only thing going against soccer was its rules it wouldn't have any troubles at all. Soccer is one of the simplest team sports in terms of its rules. Baseball and American football, in contrast, are some of the most complicated.

I spent many ESL classes in Brazil trying to explain the rules.. doctors, lawyers, politicians and executives, all smart folk, but they couldn't get it.

Not even with helpful graphics.

Thing is, the complicated stats in American Football make it unique in that it's one of the most strategic sports if not the most (dunno if chess counts).

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Getting rid of offsides is something I actually support, though purists fear cherry-picking.

The old North American Soccer League (NASL) actually did away with the international "moving offsides" rule and replaced it with an offsides line (like the blue line in hockey). I went to a Chicago Sting game where the offsides line was used, and the game was wide-open, lots of scoring chances, and, by international standards, lots of scoring (I think the final score was 5-3). A non-American may have been appalled by the result, but the fans (including myself) really enjoyed the game. Then FIFA stepped in and declared that the NASL would have to reinstate the moving offsides rule. The result: scoring dwindled, fans fled, the league folded. I think that could be introduced as "exhibit A" in the case of "USA v. Boring International Soccer."

<shrugs>

Remember that hi-scoring isn't the key for people who appreciate the intricacies of the game (as opposed to the more simplistic thrill of the goal). Some of the greatest games are low scoring.

Either way, I wish for the end of offsides, I think it among the dumbest rules in all sports.

Kinda like a rule that you can't run as fast as you can in a race.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, frankly, I've never understood the appeal of basketball. Whereas soccer is all defense and very little offense, basketball is all offense and very little defense. Really, I can't quite fathom why anyone would get excited about a basket in the first half of a basketball game -- after all, it's not like getting 2 points is a big deal when you expect to get 40 or 50 more before the game is over.

Huh? I think we are watching different sports. Basketball, in a marked difference from other American sports, is evolving more and more around defence.

In fact, I think basketball offers the defence a really unique opportunity to shine one-on-one.

On the other hand, footy is not defensive at all for many. The US plays D well (as the US does in every sport we play) but Brazil, for example, does not know what defense means.

0 Replies

I think the popularity of baseball, (American) football, and basketball might provide an interesting glimpse into the American psyche.

Baseball, (American) football and basketball are games that provide almost immediate (and continual) "results". Soccer is a game of process, more than results. Americans seem to need results.

The same perspective can be applied to life itself. "Happiness is a journey, not a destination" (Souza)

How many Americans really understand/believe this?

0 Replies

That's it angie. Watching Ronaldo nutmeg someone is as good as any Jordan slam dunk, but no "points" are scored. In football the game is as, if not more, important than the score.

I think the USA don't care about it because you just don't play it as kids. As youth participation increases so will general interest from the community. It takes a long time, but that's about the only way that any sport gets a foothold in any country.

Joe. Being from Sydney, and raised on rugby league, my general opinion is that if you want aussie rules... you can take it... and keep it. Smile

Kidding.....

sorta.

0 Replies

I find it hilarious that some many discussions on so many topics find their way to analyzing the American psyche. I've lived here for more than half of a century, and wouldn't presume to speak to the issue of the "collective" psyche of almost 300,000,000 people.

But y'all enjoy yerselves . . .

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Huh? I think we are watching different sports. Basketball, in a marked difference from other American sports, is evolving more and more around defence.

In fact, I think basketball offers the defence a really unique opportunity to shine one-on-one.

I contend that any game which averages about two scores every minute is not very defensively oriented at all.

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Joe. Being from Sydney, and raised on rugby league, my general opinion is that if you want aussie rules... you can take it... and keep it.

Kidding.....

sorta.

Not a Swans fan, eh?

That's ok. I'd rather watch rugby than soccer too.

0 Replies

I didn't mean to sound presumptous, Setana. Really !

I was just offering my opinion, which I kind of thought was the point of the site.

:wink:

0 Replies

Yes, it is the point of this site, which is why i offered mine. I did not charge you with presumption, i simply noted how amusing i find it when this happens. I would be similarly amused by the analysis of the collective psyche of any large group.

I recognize that one cannot speak about an entire nation without generalizing. Attempting to read the psyche of an individual, let alone a group, however, is something of which i remain sceptical.

But, y'all have fun, now, ya hear?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Either way, I wish for the end of offsides, I think it among the dumbest rules in all sports.

Kinda like a rule that you can't run as fast as you can in a race.

Hmm. If the forward lines up with the second to last defender, and the ball is kicked forward towards the goal, both can take off immediately, much as in a race, It doesn't matter if the offensive player catches the defender flatfooted and only appears to be offside, it only matters where they were when the ball was kicked.

So I don't get your analogy.

0 Replies

Set

I dont think Americans hate soccer. They dont understand it.

There is a lot going on on a football field besides when the ball goes in the net and one side goes crazy.

Its called tactics. And the problem is its difficult to see the pattern of play if you are restricted in your vision to a tv screen. You really have to be there, and be in a decent seat, or undersatnd the game well to appreciate it all. Sorry if I sound condescending here, it comes naturally Smile

As for baseball, schoolgirls play that in England where its called rounders. Another game we invented. In fact I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no international game that was not invented in Britain. Except sumo wrestling and that funny thing in India where they run around holding their breath.

Let me make a short list

rowing
golf
tennis
football (association football)
rugby (league and union and variants thereof)
cricket
hockey (not ice hocky I grant you)
polo
crocket
billiards
snooker
darts
horse racing
whippet racing (dogs)

ok running low now.

sailing
fishing
angling
motor racing
motor cycle racing
speedway

oh nearly forgot

boxing

These are all pursuits that we in Britain were enjoying and developing, while the rest of the world was still hunting and gathering or expropriating native land or whatever...

But my point is, that having given to the world all these wonderful and healthy pursuits, we should be entitled to at least a 2 point/score/goal advantage at the start of every international match, in recognition of our inventing the bloody game in the first place.

0 Replies

And before anyone adds that we would still lose anyway, I would say NOT NECESSARILY

0 Replies

Hockey has never done well on television except with the already devoted fan, because one needs to understand the rules, and the cameramen have a hard time following a puck which is moving at high speed.

Every few years or so, there is a series of letters to the editors of the Sunday New York Times magazine about the earliest references to baseball. They point to newspaper reports about "base ball" games played in New Jersey by the hometown boys against the visitors from Gotham. I've written several times to point out that in the novel Northhanger Abbey, Miss Austen, in the opening paragraph, describes the protagonist, Catherine, as playing many games in childhood, including baseball--spelled in just that manner. The newspaper articles to which the writers refer date from the 1830's. Northhagner Abbey was published in 1817, after Miss Austen's death. Furthermore, the main character, Catherine, first appears in Austen's juvenilia in an unfinished satirical novel (a send up of the popular gothic romances) entitled Catherine, or the Bower, which dates from 1797 at the latest--biographers contend that she wrote the original manuscripts for Northhanger Abbey, Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility between 1793 and 1798. As she had sold the copyright to the manuscript for Northhanger Abbey, and only recovered it in 1816, not long before her untimely death, the appearance of the word "baseball" can be stated with confidence to date to at least 1816.

I no longer waste my time sending those letters to the editor. It became obvious after the first three that no one was going to publish a contention that baseball first appears in print in a novel (gasp!!!) by a woman--and an English woman at that. When and why the name was changed to rounders, i could not say.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Either way, I wish for the end of offsides, I think it among the dumbest rules in all sports.

Kinda like a rule that you can't run as fast as you can in a race.

Hmm. If the forward lines up with the second to last defender, and the ball is kicked forward towards the goal, both can take off immediately, much as in a race, It doesn't matter if the offensive player catches the defender flatfooted and only appears to be offside, it only matters where they were when the ball was kicked.

So I don't get your analogy.

Basically, there is better positioning that is prescribed on the basis of one of the most poorly enforced rules in sports.

When I play, I want to get behind the defence, and being tied down to the threat of an offsides trap hampers the basic logic of moving forward.

Now, many sports rules are like this, I just think this is one of the more silly ones.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Huh? I think we are watching different sports. Basketball, in a marked difference from other American sports, is evolving more and more around defence.

In fact, I think basketball offers the defence a really unique opportunity to shine one-on-one.

I contend that any game which averages about two scores every minute is not very defensively oriented at all.

I contend that you confuse facillity in scoring with defense.

Basketball, was originally invented with the baskets on the floor and the ball to be kicked in. This was too hard.

So then it was to be tossed in.

This was too easy.

So the baskets were placed on a rail or somesuch that happened to be 10 feet up.

Basketball is very much focused on defense, and the frequency of scoring reflects the facility of scoring and not the degree to which defense plays a part.

In basketball there is an evolution toward better defense, and rules changing hand-checking and such are introduced in a fight against increasingly low scores.

In basketball defensive team win championships these days.

In football this is less clearly so, and teams like Brazil with a leaky defense can win merely on the basis of their better offense.

Football is usually won by teams that can best capitalize on socring opportunities, and defensive teams can usually do well but not take whole championships.

To compare the frequency with which baskets are made to the frequency with which goals are made would be a comparison of the facility of each act more so than the defensive nature of the game.

0 Replies

Why America Hates Football (a.k.a. Soccer)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know