22 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI will have to buy some new jeans .:'(:'(
It's not your fault. Most stupid people aren't actually aware of their own stupidity. It's also not an insult, since being stupid isn't really something you can help. Intelligence is in large part genetic.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16953
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Zoneball, downball...
One thing I will agree; that soccer deserves the name "football" much more so than football does.
Other than kickoffs, punts and field goals, "feet" are almost irrelevant in football (Rex Ryan notwithstanding).
Maybe it should be called "ovalball" or "runball" or "throwball."
However, as Shakespeare might say, a great game by any other name would smell as sweet.
I do think it's funny when people complain about Americans calling football soccer... like they're the only country to do so. Australia - to the rest of the world it's Aussie rules, in Aus it's football. What do they call the other football? Soccer. Ireland - Gaelic football to he rest of the world, in Ireland - football. The other football - soccer.
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI would like to insult you too but i dont think you would understand me .
It's not your fault. Most stupid people aren't actually aware of their own stupidity. It's also not an insult, since being stupid isn't really something you can help. Intelligence is in large part genetic.
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by Trev33Aussies are the salt of the earth ,they can call our great game of football what they like .
Zoneball, downball...
I do think it's funny when people complain about Americans calling football soccer... like they're the only country to do so. Australia - to the rest of the world it's Aussie rules, in Aus it's football. What do they call the other football? Soccer. Ireland - Gaelic football to he rest of the world, in Ireland - football. The other football - soccer.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell, maybe you've hit the crux of why people from the USA find football, rugby, cricket and other "old" sports boring. They want, nay demand, instant gratification, a goal a minute or bust, and those sports don't give it to them. In the rest of the world, we've learned that the work-up to a bang is often more interesting than the bang itself, and when it comes, a score is all the more rewarding because it has a strategic history and you can see where it's been coming from.
My second remark pertains to sports in general. People (generally) want to see great offensive games. That's not to say they don't appreciate great performances, but the crowds go nuts when someone scores, in any sport.
In cricket, a run doesn't just come from a single thrown ball. It may look like that, and all the balls before it may look like just wasted time, but that's only true if you disregard that the whole of that time, the same few bowlers and the same fielder have been trying to psych one another out. Compare that to baseball: one batsman can only have a handful of pitches thrown at him. If he doesn't hit, either he gets four balls or he gets three zeroes. Short-term gratification is built into the rules. In cricket, long-term attention is.
You say that people in general want to see great offensive games. Well, this is partly true. What you ignore is that a great offense can be met with a great defense, and the result of that is much more interesting, to a grown-up mind, than mere spectacle. You confuse the immediate reaction to the release with the enjoyment of the preceding tension.
A score is good fun, but it is only truly great if it has been preceded by a justifying strategic plan. There is room for such plans in football. Because of the short games and the demand for frequent scores, in American Football there is only truly room for tactical plans. Those are fine, but they're not on the level of the strategy you can find in European sports. It's a pity people from the USA are not capable of enjoying that.
Richard
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueHow are football, hockey or baseball "a goal a minute"?
Well, maybe you've hit the crux of why people from the USA find football, rugby, cricket and other "old" sports boring. They want, nay demand, instant gratification, a goal a minute or bust, and those sports don't give it to them. In the rest of the world, we've learned that the work-up to a bang is often more interesting than the bang itself, and when ...[text shortened]... sports. It's a pity people from the USA are not capable of enjoying that.
Richard
We don't need a goal a minute. We need that there be a realistic chance of someone scoring at any given time and the game not to be essentially over just because it's 2-0. Otherwise, it's just boring.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueWell said
Well, maybe you've hit the crux of why people from the USA find football, rugby, cricket and other "old" sports boring. They want, nay demand, instant gratification, a goal a minute or bust, and those sports don't give it to them. In the rest of the world, we've learned that the work-up to a bang is often more interesting than the bang itself, and when ...[text shortened]... sports. It's a pity people from the USA are not capable of enjoying that.
Richard
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueAbsolute nonsense. Talk us through the goal (or score) per minute in baseball, football, hockey and golf - which are all huge sports in the US. The only sport that fits that description is basketball.
Well, maybe you've hit the crux of why people from the USA find football, rugby, cricket and other "old" sports boring. They want, nay demand, instant gratification, a goal a minute or bust, and those sports don't give it to them. In the rest of the world, we've learned that the work-up to a bang is often more interesting than the bang itself, and when ...[text shortened]... sports. It's a pity people from the USA are not capable of enjoying that.
Richard
Why does every civil discussion about cross culture sports invite big headed Europeans with a superiority complex?
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperDont tell me you are suprised at the out come to the "why do americans find soccer boring " thread .
Absolute nonsense. Talk us through the goal (or score) per minute in baseball, football, hockey and golf - which are all huge sports in the US. The only sport that fits that description is basketball.
Why does every civil discussion about cross culture sports invite big headed Europeans with a superiority complex?
Its not are fault we are superior ,after all if it wasn't for us europeans you wouldn't have a country to have any sports in .
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by phil3000Well of course, we were derived from European migrants. And while there certainly are some Americans who live up to negative stereotypes, your ignorant chest thumping fits perfectly. You are the European version of a dumb American redneck hick. Don't think that your continent or your country are immune.
Dont tell me you are suprised at the out come to the "why do americans find soccer boring " thread .
Its not are fault we are superior ,after all if it wasn't for us europeans you wouldn't have a country to have any sports in .
The real answer isn't so much about culture, it's about exposure. It's not that Americans are incapable of appreciating soccer, it's that we just don't grow up watching it. Too many other sports already saturate the airwaves with playtime and marketing and already have a huge fan base. That doesn't leave much room for other sports to break through.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThat it is less interesting is also probably a factor.
The real answer isn't so much about culture, it's about exposure. It's not that Americans are incapable of appreciating soccer, it's that we just don't grow up watching it. Too many other sports already saturate the airwaves with playtime and marketing and already have a huge fan base. That doesn't leave much room for other sports to break through.