Low-scoring sports are GOOD!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- The USA once hosted the World Cup, and it is a jolly good thing that the host nation did not win, since most Americans were unaware that the world's biggest sporting event was happening in their country, and it would have cheesed off the rest of the world no end if the USA had won without noticing.
www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
![Baby Kia - GLOVES & DRACS (BLACK AF1s) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ajm8LeB0qQk/mqdefault.jpg)
The ultimate goal of golf is to play the least amount of golf possible.
Feels like that comment is copied but yeah
So do I win every time..... by not playing?
@@AntarcticMagpie infinitely so.
Hmmm, most golfers use golf to see if their future business partner is a show off, cheater, lier or bad looser.. the ultimate goal concerning score is a hole in one on every hole and nobody can afford to have that happen to them
@@petersilk Huh- I wonder if the nature of golf as a sport you do in parallel makes it better for this purpose than a directly opposed sport. Although the main reason businessmen and politicians play golf is it's an expensive sport that proles can't do.
I LOVE how he said "soccer" with a 40 year old American father of 3 accent.
I think Hockey would suit your tastes. Low scoring, high energy, and involves bashy and slashy things. :)
+Fetch26291 It's more high-scoring than soccer, but the game turns so easily that the audience don't leave unless their team is under by like 4-5 goals in the last period.
+Daniel Selin and even THEN you get miraculous comebacks
this is actually why I like it so much.
Plus you can have stuff like overtime. Having nil-nil can be fun for most of the game, but it's disappointing to have a game end like that.
I always found hockey to have the perfect balance between low and high scoring. There are more goals than in football, but they are rare enough to be important and exciting when they happen.
@HumanRights4Everyone Yes "Soccer" is a posh abbreviation for "Association Football". The term "football" comes from the fact that it is a game in which people move a ball about using their feet.
I always say soccer because it avoids confusion with Gaelic football.
Hurling is another Gaelic game, it’s high scoring and very exciting.
@@ClannCholmain I thought hurling was what you do after drinking too much (another Gaelic game).
@@KeithHearnPlus hurling abuse, yes.
@@ClannCholmain I say soccer simply to piss people off.
Doesnt "football" come from the fact that its played on foot as opposed to on horseback(which was more standard for aristocratic sport games for a while)?
Was the hotdog good?
asking the real questions
Erduk .
Junk food.
since he's british and hasn't killed himself he probably lacks taste receptors
The only problem comes when the low-scoring sport becomes a no-scoring sport.
He addressed that and I agree with him totally
American Football isn't so much a high-scoring sport as it is a sport where each pointworthy action has an arbitrarily high number attached to it. The numbers at the end of the game aren't that high because the players managed to sprint across the field unmolested fifty-six times. It's a bit like saying 30 points were scored in the first five minutes of a tennis match. Technically, yes, the score is 30, but that's because points were scored exactly twice.
It takes more effort to score a touchdown than a field goal.
@@joelwilcox6931 That's why there are more touchdowns in a smaller timeframe???????
Agreed.
And American Football depends entirely on the game- I’ve seen Alabama University have games that were like 21-14 (essentially 3-2) and games that were 80-something to 20-ish.
But as someone who’s played soccer for a while I do think that when 2 roughly equal teams really go at it and it’s a less than 3 point game it’s amazingly entertaining/fun
@@Jessie_Helms That's because NCAA FCS is about 2-4x as big as it should be to have a competition between true equals
Jonathan Cast I don’t know what any of those letters mean... I’m an American and not particularly into any sports.
beautiful pronunciation of 'soccer', had me lol'ing
SAHKUR
These 10 year old videos are the best ones
Cricket's an extremely high-scoring sport, with very high highs and extreme lows- some people find it boring, and I can understand that; its a cultural thing I suppose- but I find it thoroughly satisfying. When I'm home for the holidays and the ashes are on, I can laze around in front of the TV for five days (All while doing other things of coarse). Nothing beats a test match, but then again, that's just me- I'm sure a lot of people disagree.
+Mining Forge Unlike basketball, cricket does have tension.
To make them comparable basketball would need a rule like; if a player misses a shot, that player cannot score for the rest of the game.
***** "Matches last weeks" is a bit of an exaggeration, but its not far off.
A 'Test Match', the longest form of cricket, last 5 days. Play begins at 10am and continues until 5-6pm, every day, for 5 days. The players have two short breaks throughout the day to eat/drink/go to the toilet etc, but otherwise, they're pretty much playing 7-8 hours a day for five days.
There are 3 'forms' of cricket; which may be confusing to understand- but its a pretty simple concept; the three 'forms' all have the same rules, the only real difference is the length of the game. (Eg. Imagine three 'forms of soccer', where the only difference is the matches go for different amounts of time; i.e., a soccer match that goes for 180 minutes, 90 minutes, and 30 minutes- that's essentially what happens with the different types of cricket).
The three forms:
TEST MATCH: 5 days
ONE-DAY MATCH: about 8 hours (50 overs)
T20 (Twenty-Twenty): about 4 hours (20 overs).
In a 'season', teams will play a mixture of all three. Fo example; when Australia went to England on tour earlier this year, they played 5 test matches, 7 one-day internationals, and 2 T20's.
I can understand your curiosity about cricket, its pretty alien to those who aren't familiar with it- and it does come across as being complicated to understand, but it is in essence, really quite simple once you've watched enough of it and understand all the rules.
As for your other questions 'How long is a season?'. Cricket is played in Summer, because the game cannot be played when its raining (For reasons I shan't delve into).
On the international stage, this generally means that cricket can be played all year round, because you can always play matches where its summer i.e., when its winter in Australia, Australia will go over to England during their summer to play. When its winter in England, England will go to Australia/South Africa or to India etc etc.
Sorry for the long-winded response, but where cricket is involved, brief explanations are non-existent :)
***** True... but what if there are two games, both played with a ball and a foot? How do you distinguish between the two? :D
+Owneador1337 No, in some parts of ireland cricket is really popular (not as popular as gaelic football, hurling, soccer or rugby but popular).
+Eric Einárson It certainly is and test cricket has always been my favourite sport.
I was educated at an English public school (for US readers that is what you would call a private school - there is logic to that but I'll spare you the explanation) and like all English public schools, we played cricket in the summer and rugby union in the winter. I've never really liked football.
The British gave it the name soccer.
very true
+marshalt i assume they just spread that word to the colonies, damaging our reputation among the rest of the worlds footballers.
Yes, as an abbreviation of "Association Football". We've always used football as the common term and it's also the original term used by us. A decree in 1579 banned the playing of "footeball" at Cambridge University, and soccer is only recorded as late as 1880, 27 years after the formation of the Football League.
marshalt as an American living in London, if you say "football" in an American accent, it confuses people. So I've switched to calling It soccer.
Our american football should just be called gridironball or something, I hate the confusion.
"Soccer" actually comes from Oxford as a shortening of "Association" football.
The British also invented the word "Handegg". Get over it
And was what we in the UK all called football in the 1950s - but try telling that to young people nowadays ;-)
Not that it mattered much because soccer was just a thing which happened on Saturday afternoons, followed by the results on TV, then it was all over for another week - no big dramas about transfers, no manager spats, no WAGs. And no football on TV apart from the Cup Final and the very occasional international. That's right, no Match of the Day until we went and "won" the World Cup in 1966. Which was nice - but, again, no big deal because football just wasn't a big deal - no dancing in the streets, about on a par with that 2002 winter olympic gold for curling.
Quite right. Association football (soccer) and rugby football (rugby). Followed by rugby football (union = 15 a side) and rugby football (league = 13 a side).
@@dabtican4953 My wife would have your ear if she heard you say that :p
There was a craze of putting "er" at the end of words for some bizarre reason? That's why Rugby gets called Rugger and Soccer has "er" on the end. Peoples names might end up with "er" on the end as a sort of nickname. It's all a posh University thing
It depends on your relationship with the sport. Football is "designed" to hold your attention throughout the entire match, while americans like to do side activities while watching their sports.
Also, football has continuous 45 min action, while the american handfatbanana has a lot of pauses; for eating hot dogs, I presume. I myself can't stand watching a turn based game.
How does it keep your attention while nothing is happening?
It's horses for courses I guess. To me it's like the difference between British and American cinema. I prefer understated tense thrillers in which 'nothing' happens. In fact there is plenty happening but if you are used to the typical American diet of high-octane mile-a-minute crashy bashy blockbuster movies then I suppose they would be boring. Whereas I find the aforementioned modern non-stop action flicks tiresome. When people are dying in their thousands and disaster is unfolding everywhere after not very long it just becomes extremely homogenous and completely inconsequential. The White House just blew up! ...oh no.. what a ca..lam...ity... I just tend to switch off after the first 4 or 5 utterly disposable characters have been picked off
Soccer Is super boring compared to football.
@@CousinBowling You mean wimps rugby? Big girls blouses, wearing helmets and armour!
As an American, I call "American-football" by it's more representative name: "Hand-Egg." You grab an egg in your hand and run.
Yeah, well I call soccer foot-ball... oh wait.
Paul TheSkeptic I call soccer football. It's the only true "foot-ball" game.
Nikolas Powell Yeah, hence the joke. I like the hand egg thing. That was funny.
Paul TheSkeptic
Nikolas Powell Well, I said I was joking but whether you were or not, the hand egg thing was still funny.
Football match: 90 mins of actual game, 30 mins for ads, pauses, etc.
Handegg match: 40 mins of actual game, 140 mins of ads, pauses, etc.
Actually just 15 mins for ads/pauses.
@@dartholiver right and time management is something completely different in that game.
"a restaurant where a basketball match were happening to be being played" lol'ed
In my opinion, a neck and neck game of basketball during the last minutes of the game is the most exciting of all ball sports. Even with just seconds left, the possibility of the game turning around never disappears.
Yeah, but when the excitement will occur is rather predictable - it can only be at the end. If any team breaks away on points and has a good lead than they basically won it before it was ever close.
In low scoring sport such as football it's rather unpredictable. You can score your goal in minute 3 and celebrate because there is a chance it's a match winner and the only goal of the game. Any equalizing goal will have the same effect, in fact any goal until the team breaks away at +4 will be celebrated but if anyone is 4 or more up it is becoming not so low scoring game anymore so the celebtations will subside and be replaced by the looks of pitty to poor losers who also got embarrased.
@@yambo000 That's a faulty argument. In anything but a blowout in basketball, every possession counts. Scoring on one possession, or a big play like a steal leading to a breakaway score, even in the first half, may give a team 4 point (2 possession) lead that they carry on to the end. Effectively, each possession is a game-deciding possession. Also, because it's possible to go from a drought with no scoring for several possessions to scoring 6+ points in short succession (or vice versa) due to fouls, steals, and breakaways, a basketball game usually isn't hopeless until one team is up well over 20 points in the second half. Even a 12 point lead with 2 minutes to go isn't infallible - though I can admit that when it turns into a fouling match - especially when you're a fan of the team receiving the fouls - it can be frustrating for the last 2 minutes of the game clock to last 15+ minutes.
Admittedly, I am not a huge fan of NBA basketball. I find NCAA college ball far more interesting, especially March Madness. One thing that the NFL has right and the NHL, NBA, and MLB don't is the number of games, especially in the playoffs. One and done is far more exciting when it comes to playoffs than the best of 5 or 7. The underdog winning and advancing occasionally is extremely exciting, and a 'best-of' series usually prevents that from happening.
@@MSUTri I watch both kinds of sports, and the ones where one goal means more are definitely more entertaining, or at least give you more reason to celebrate.
You're describing a situation where two teams are close so every move counts, but most games have a favorite, and if said favorite are slowly building up an advantage basically no exciting moment will happen.
In low scoring sports, even if you have a favorite they're still long way to win until they score so at the very least their first goal will be celebrated by the fans as it signals a very possible victory. Low scoring means a very real chance of a draw so until someone scores it's very much unknown. No fans will get super excited because a team who are favorites to win a basketball game went 4 up, or when they go 6 up, by the time they go 8 up things are already looking settled if the under dog is not able to catch up.
One word: hurling.
exactly
was thinking the same. saw Tipp play Cork in croker once. sweet jesus...
Miguel Alberola Cano Haha, if only he knew.
look it up its an irish sport
@@irishlongswordboland3114 Or shinty in Scotland. Basically hockey with no rules.
and thus high level starcraft is the most exciting sport.
Yeah i'm an american and i find our football exceptionally boring.
+Pizzagulper
i used to play handegg in high school...it is massively exciting to play...completely horrible and boring to watch
"oh, which one has the ball?"
"no idea, its brown, and their jerseys are dark red, their helmets are black. they all look the same."
Pizzagulper I'm European and I find our football exceptionally boring.
All American entertainment is like this, coming from an American. There is a very obvious lack of subtlety, because subtlety requires complete focus and in Amurica we have more fun if we can look at something for a few minutes, then talk to our buddies or eat some food or something, and then come back and still know what's going on. You can see it in sports, popular television, popular movies, popular music, pretty much everything.
Baseball is the closest thing to a low-scoring sport to come from American sports. It is far more exciting than basketball. American Football at least is a very violent sport...but if you want violence AND low-scoring look no further than hockey (ice or field). Lacross is another good one.
While I don't quite get it, Polo (horse or water) is entertaining too.
+Shining Darkness Amer. Football is largely a low-scoring sport, we just count each goal differently.
Most games end with point ceilings never crossing the 50-point threshold. Which is at most 7 scores, or some combination of field goals, 1 or 2 point conversions, and actual touchdowns.
It has variety to make up for its slightly higher score count.
And since the NHL has roughly the viewership in the US as the NBA, I think it's perfectly valid to choose that one over the scoremagedon that is the NBA. If you do that, you've got not only a low-scoring, high tension sport but also a much, much faster one than football (soccer).
The problem is that the NFL and the NHL both have complex rules, while football (soccer) has very simple core rules with a bunch of smaller ones governing play.
Offside is when an offensive player gets the ball ahead of the last defenseman. No handball, ball kicked past the goal line by defense is corner kick, ball kicked past the goal line by offense is turnover to goalie, throw-ins.
That's pretty much it.
By contrast, NHL has offside but also icing. The crease cannot be played in, icing results in offense-end faceoff, 2 minute and 5 minute penalties, valid and invalid checks, shift changes and pulled goalies.
+buca117 Nah, the rules are not the core problem, the core problem is that you gave 2 min action and then 10 min break. I'm not a big football(the kickball fan) but when the intensity is on top it is pretty fun to watch. Same in rugby, I mean, yeah they got a lot of scrums, line-ups etc but they take 2 min and then its 10 min of play, not otherwise like in AF
+FaenWszystkoZajete American Football is more like chess - slow and calculating.
Dingus
So is this telling why NASCAR is so tremendously popular in USA compared to Europe?
I mean yes , the most European Motorsport aren't that thrilling either but in these Ovals you don't have to know which corner they are.
Kind of interesting but the name "Soccer" wasn't invented by an American, but an Englishman. It comes from the sport's official name Associated Football. While I'm not a fan of American Football, you should love it as it is in fact mock combat in its purist (and most brutal) form. There are many analogies to Napoleonic warfare: Kick off is artillery, running the ball is Infantry, etc.
I think hockey is a pretty good sport. Few games have a team that gets
more than 5 points, but there are numerous chances. Breakouts happen
often and give good scoring chances, and penalties give an advantage,
but don't guarantee a goal. Play is almost always close enough to always have a threat of scoring, and players change lines every minute or so, meaning that players always give it there all for the time they are on the ice. Team play is a huge factor, but individual efforts can be just as effective.
Well, Hockey's great. You get high speeds, physical contact, intense midfield (or midrink?) play when one side tries to invade into the other with the puck and then the offensive play which in many cases isn't just shoot and run but pass pass pass duke pass shoot while the defending team is tackling and trying to cut off the pass. Don't even get me started on the overtime and the shootout. And I guess it could be counted as a high scoring sports?
Hockey is THE sport.
But then you have to compare NHL to IIHF, which is better?
@@Liggliluff NHL absolutely hands down but it isn't actually a very fair comparison to the IIHF. In NHL the players have been playing and training together (barring new comers etc) for a long while which in itself raises the level of play. Then you consider that the NHL just simply has the best of the best where as IIHF Worlds have the players whose teams are out of the playoffs AND give the player permission to play in the Worlds and even then it'a not guaranteed that the player will represent their country (see: Team Finland had quite a few disappointing rejections for the 2019 squad).
American Football = HandEgg
handegg 😂
+JAY FRANCIS Why yes, it's played with hands, not feet, and the ball is oval, not spherical. Heard this argument years ago, & I was convinced instantly and completely.
+Elizabeta Macovei I agree. just never heard it before. made me smile
Except that football is a family of sports, not a descriptive name, and that Rugby, running with the ball, is possibly older than kickball and certainly better. And US football is just overly regimented coach-dominated Rugby.
Handegg? Then what is rugby?😂
By far the best argument for soccer ever. Can we now discuss the theatrical knee holding aspect?
There are countless things you got wrong here, but thankfully the comments have it pretty well covered...except the POINT of the scoring system
In (American) Football there are SEVERAL ways to score (five) instead of one way to score (as in association football) the numbers change according to the value of the action, the harder to pull off, the greater the value. American Football is a STRATEGY game, Association Football is a REFLEX game. Comparing the scoring methods against each other makes no sense.
*more fun
The word you used means something completely different. You also suggested that adding complexity doesnt add...complexity. I think you meant to suggest that complexity and depth do not necessarily follow one another.
Its puerto rico, if that is infact what you are referencing, and im lead once again to say that soccer is not a strategy game, unless you count faking injuries (in which case chess needs to step the hell back because soccer is next-level shit.)
No matter how deep you try to get with it, soccer breaks down rather quickly, you can plan all you want, but those plans are sure to fall apart. Its a game ruled by on-the-fly tactics, rather than a grand strategy. I would know, as I played the game for years.
As a counter to your post-script, Its not surprising that someone would find watching football boring, just as its not surprising people find watching starcraft boring. You have to know an awful lot about the nature of the game to actually appreciate whats occurring, and then have to also appreciate it a great deal to find yourself entertained by it.
Finally, to your odd and seemingly out of place comment on hockey, I think its a bit silly if people discount the sport entirely because of a risk involved in playing it.
First of all, yes we only have one way to score, but there are free kicks, penalties, penalty shoot-outs, goals from open play. There are long shots, bicycles, scissor kicks, Rabonas, headers, curling shots, etc.
As for strategy, if you understood 'soccer', you'd see there is actually a lot of strategy involved. Wing play, midfield numbers, etc. etc. Tiki-taka and the possession method, counter attack, high press, defensive (bus parking). There's the 4-3-3, 4-3-2-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1, 4-2-2, 4-5-1, 5-3-2/3-5-2, 4-2-2 diamond, 4-2-2, and many others, because the players are not constricted to a horizontal line, they can play anywhere on the pitch they want.
Both sports are very high on strategical intricacy, unlike sports like basketball or baseball, which are about simply getting good players.
IMO, the main advantage 'soccer' has on American Football is play time. Play is practically constant (they even add on time for fouls, etc to ensure we get the full 90 minutes of players actually moving). Which is much better than 10 minutes of play time and 50 of ads, breaks, and men in black and white measuring a fields. Otherwise, they're both great games in their own right.
mike mikeson There is just as much strategy and reflex involved in both games, you'd know if you watched both. The only difference is, actual football players need conditioning and conditioning plays a real factor as such. In American football you have more time-out than actual play and even then only half a team plays at a time, so conditioning is not issue and anyone who says it is is just trying to talk away a bad performance.
I think the reason America prefers higher scoring games is because sports here is driven primarily by gambling and advertising, not "how exciting it is". You can fine tune the payouts if you have more granularity on your point spread.
Also, we're far too aggressive to accept a tie game.
I agree with the low scoring matches are good argument.
Something else I've also thought of: All the North American sports seem to have a built in high point every 24 to 45 seconds. Hockey and basketball it's the end to end swing. Not much happens in the middle. "Football", both American and Canadian versions, the burst of excitement as the play occurs... In baseball, it's the pitch. They all have the quick rise to a climax followed by a short lull and then another peak.
None of them have the kind of build-up or prolonged (but continuous) midfield action of football (association and rugby). It seems to me a lot of people here in NA can't appreciate action, which may well be brilliant, if it isn't associated with the possibility of scoring.
But the Brits win on the other end to... because they have their game with regular peaks and lulls too, Cricket. But they drag it out over 5 days and North Americans can't maintain their attention that long.
rugbyguy59 Ice Hockey does sort of have that build up, it just happens at a much faster pace due to the playing surface being so small and made out of ice
ACB Films the peak of hockey is the fights and not the goals
You know, I never actually considered this. I'm Australian and while AFL is far superior to Handegg I've always used the argument that it's a high scoring sport against soccer. Good point, Lloyd!
+LittleMikey True, but I reckon that the more exciting bit of AFL is on the field itself, when there's the tackles and the marks and so on.
As an American who's watched Australian football on tele I must say those are some tough chaps with no pads and no helmets
The thing that ruins basketball for me, are the rules. It is not very clear, when a fault happens, and even if they were clear, making faults is an essential part of a close game. You can make a few of them, but after that you give a chance for the opponent to score. A team just needs to make sure they fault at the best times, and ensure they fill their allowed fault cap.
The essence of time is another thing. If you are in the lead during the 4th quarter, you should use as much time (again, a limit you can use on attack) as you can to make it more difficult for the other team to catch up. This could be said about association football as well, but there it's dangerous to keep many players in the attack zone, as it is dangerous to pass the ball between defenders-midfielders, for interceptions and mistakes. American football is the most ridiculous with time, as different events either stop or don't stop the clock and there is a lot of messing around with those mechanics.
There are loads of weaknesses with all sports though, as there are strengths. It comes down to the individual to decide which sports contain the most shruggable negatives and the most rewarding positives.
For association football, I'd like to see these changes to make it more enjoyable to play and watch, and also just for keeping it up with the times:
- Bigger goals, horizontally, as goaltenders are larger, more athletic and the defense tactics have improved tons.
- More referees, and also video refereeing for bigger leagues/events and so on.
- In addition to previous, hefty penalties for filming. More referees and consequences would work towards finally getting rid of childish theatrics on the field, and no one would have to roll and flop around on the field screaming, only to tell they were faulted against and make referees see that.
- The offside line should be moved up quite a bit from the middle.
- There should also be a 16-20m line at each end to remove the possibility of non-practical offside rulings. Similar to ice hockey (blue line), so whenever the ball crosses the line, there can't be an offside anymore. If I'm mere 10 meters from the goal and I pass to a player who is behind a defender at 5m from the goal, it's a very gimmicky offside, as he really isn't getting any "camping striker" advantage anymore during that stage of the attack.
- There should be more substitutes, perhaps 6 players & 1 keeper, and a team should be able to change 1-7 players between the field and the substitute pool in any configuration every 15 minutes (so you couldn't keep an otherwise weak free kick -specialist on the bench only for certain situations, and so on). This would keep the game much more energetic from start to finish. You wouldn't have to be afraid of using up your substitutes in case of injuries and the like. Another advantage is that more players could get more time on the field.
+Pythonesque Time management in American football is one of its most tactical elements.
It's foul not fault
As a Canadian the answer is clearly ice hockey. It's fun fast-paced and aggressive. Individual skill matters as well as team play and the scores are never ridiculously high or low. Every time the puck gets close to the net the atmosphere becomes extremely tense and exciting. Anyone who has never seen an ice hockey match should give it a try.
Regarding basketball I agree, but American football is basically a low scoring game with 6 or 3 points per score. I've seen way, way, way more late-game upsets/close games in American football than 'soccer'.
This is mainly due to the huge number of ways teams can score: Field goals (advantages of having a good kicker), throwing and running touchdowns, offensive special teams, safeties, PAT, 2 point conversions. 2 goals in pro- soccer is a much greater lead than 2 touchdowns in American Football despite the numeric difference.
Being two touchdowns behind at the start of the final quarter in Gridiron most likely means you've lost, Being 2-0 down on 80 minutes in football however means no such thing. Teams have come back many many times from 2 goal deficits with less than 10 minutes to go, Spain did it against England just the other week to earn a draw.
A few years ago {2003} Leicester City were 3-0 up against Wolves at half time, Wolves won 4-3, A couple years before that {2001} Tottenham Hotspur were 3-0 up against Man U. at half time, Man U won 5-3.
Those are just two of the most famous examples of teams coming back from 3-0 down to win.
Oh and Football isn't always low scoring either - Australia once won a game 31-0 against American Samoa in a World Cup Qualifier.
OK that isn't a Basketball score but Basketball can't rival Cricket - If it's just numbers you're after then Cricket is going to win!
We are talking about the usual not the exception. Teams come back from 2 or 3 touchdowns in a quarter ALL THE TIME in football. I could reference at least 10 times it's happened this 2016 season alone in the NFL and NCAA.
I agree with you Skog. The part that drives me nuts about american football is that a game takes four hours.
"American football is basically a low scoring game with 6 or 3 points per score."
still the average nfl game has like 45points which represents at minimum 7different scores and a maximum of 15 scores assuming we ignore uncommon ways to score.
the average soccer game is at like 3scores.
@@ambieofilms Sorry mate. The terms football and touchdown can not be used in the same context. Only a keeper can touch the ball and put it down, not every effing player. And a turning match in real football is not an exception. You probably watch "american" real football (so not handegg or commercialised rugby) as a reference. I tried to watch American football a few times and it's just so.... slow.... Every minute, the game stops, coaches are intervening, time outs and so forth. That is just not a sport to me. Personal preference and I know I'm being biased. But so are you on "real" football. I'm not a big fan, but this sport can give you a heart attack if it's close. Wih american football that danger rather comes from the hotdogs and the burgers I'm afraid... And that is why american football is what it is with it's gameplays of, let's say, four hours?. The fans need to consume. Panem et circenses. Pay and swallow, pay and swallow,...
LLoyd- You've misdiagnosed why some Americans find soccer/football dull. The truth is that all sports are boring. The excitement is merely imputed emotional value. What actually is exciting is being in a large group of people which is for one team and is therefore against all others. The whole of sports broadcasting is designed to tell you that each match is important and has significant implications. More importantly your loyalty to one team or another is IMPORTANT and has implications. Reasonable honesty will require a person to admit that each team is a fungible entity to which a fan applies emotion and time until sentimentality kicks in.
This principle extends to preference of one sport over another (as well as to nation-state, and local linguistic preferences.) I trust you are clever enough to work out the rest of this point.
As it happens, I find all of the above exceedingly dull to watch, and some of them fun to play.
p.s. In another of your videos, you complained about American movies which use American actors who mangle British accents. I promise you the sentiment is returned by we septics who watch UK TV and RUclips.
I continue to enjoy your rants.
... imputed value. I enjoy a show about IDPA rule gaming and strategy. To an outsider, that would be as dull as a BBC melodrama.
Sure, but comparing one sport to another doesn't work particularly well. While I actively dislike basketball, and enjoy playing football(soccer), both are boring to watch.
Both are competitive games which require a great deal of athleticism, strategy, and teamwork. The scale of the numerical score is an arbitrary factor. What matters is the spread and the amount of work and talent involved. Basketball requires full body athleticism and practice and if anything requires faster situation awareness. It is a sprint, while football is a marathon with occasional sprints.
The fun of watching, if any comes from interest in the sport itself slightly, but mostly from joining one crowd against another. Once you realize that one sports allegiance is much like another, it really doesn't matter what the sport is. Remember- there are people who have vehement feelings about cricket, and every few years people get excited about pushing a rock and sweeping with brooms. That's all about being a group member. In fact, half the appeal of the latter is that the underlying 'sport' is specifically inane and un-interesting, so the only element left is nationalistic sports allegiance.
GunFun ZS a lot of people enjoy football because of the tribalism, ur right but sport is definitely exciting. ur just a dweeb who thinks their really intelligent and got picked last in P.E
I have to disagree with GunFun ZS. As part of my job I recently had to watch several hours of amateur-shot footage of amateur-league football games. I don't watch football games usually; neither on television nor in person. I had no emotional investment in either of the teams, I wasn't there in person during the game, there were very few spectators at the time of shooting, the camera work was shoddy and I watched the games without sound -- and I still found myself hanging on to the edge of my seat all the time following the games.
Cmon man thats America they have only boring sports so I dont blame him why he thinks that way.
Basketball boring, baseball boring, etc etc. They watch the Super Bowl more for its commercials so i understand why he needs emotional investment to find smth interesting. Its a boring sport but as long as we win and we have a reason to party than its OK. They will never know how it feels to see a team coming back and win from a sure defeat in the last 3 minutes.
I'd think Lloyd of all people would know why it's called "football" in the first place, and that "soccer" is actually a British term. Americans use your measurement system and your vernacular, but still you guys make fun of us.
It's called football because it's played on foot, i.e. a peasant sport, as opposed to on horseback, a noble sport, like polo. Therefore, any sport played on foot is technically "football"; thus American, Canadian, Australian, Rugby, etc. footballs.
The reason it's called "Soccer" is because it's Association Football. The name comes from the British habit of adding "er" to some words, like fiver and tenner. AsSOCiation --> Soc-er --> soccer.
Ireland, Canada, Southern Africa, Oceania, Japan, and half of the Philippines all say Soccer, not to mention several countries that have their own unique names for it. I don't understand why this is such a big deal to people.
historically. the word football precedes the word soccer to refer to kicking the round ball into the net.
so....
@@basteagui did you even read my full comment?
@@micahphilson it may be called football because it's played on foot in the USA but in england it's been called football since the 1500s and obviously because you kick the round ball with your feet.
@@basteagui that etymology comes _from_ medieval England. Traditional football was a street-rules game of bringing a leather ball from one end of town to the other, or one town to another, on foot. You could carry the ball in your hands.
I do agree with you on this one. I prefer ice hockey. Hearing you try to say “soccer” with an American accent is hysterical. I do not think anyone ever in the history of forever would mistake you for anything other than British. You are absolutely and completely adorable!
I’ve played soccer (football) for a while and I think it’s pretty exciting (my lowest scoring games were the most exciting).
Scoring your second point in what was a 1-1 score with 5 minutes left is crazy intense.
My team took second over all and tied 2-2, only losing cause of the tie breaking kicks at the end (which was 2-3).
@Catachan1brainleaf It was originally scored using a clock. The hands were moved around the face, so "15" was quarter past etc., and the hour hand would mark the sets, so once round the clock for the hour hand was victory in a best-of-three-set match.
High-scoring sports = better statistical likelihood that the winner didn't win because of dumb luck.
Low-scoring sports = more random and unpredictable result. If one team scores twice as often as the other in a sport where the game ends when the winner scores the first point.
In high-scoring games, there's a very high likelihood that a mismatched game will be ever so boring because, for example, in basketball, 45 vs. 30 with half the game left on the clock is a foregone conclusion. I.E. the game becomes predictable when the teams are not matched.
In low-scoring games, there is a very high likelihood that the result was not destiny but luck. Imagine "competitive die rolling" where we roll a D20 and if it's an 9 or under, I win? Else, you win.
If we play this to a score of 1, then it will be a very tense game indeed, but you'll only have a 55% chance of winning.
Meanwhile, if we play 101 rounds, you will win 85% of the time and I will win 15% of the time.
We watch football for entertainment, so an unpredictable game is much more fun. When a weak team can still win (lower chance but still totally possible) it can create the greatest plot twists in tournaments, especially when the whole world is watching.
@@yuzan3607 I agree. Otherwise the team with the most money always wins. Here was a team a few years ago that existed of mostly electricians, mechanics and construction workers that played football after their working hours. Because every other team underestimated them, they became national champion and the club is still a good club these days. Almost all players got a nice contract and were taken care of. Now that's an american dream, isn't it?
It's not luck, it's about art of attack and defense, tactics and skills
I love this British guy telling me what sports are entertaining, because a pedantic British man in his mid-40's is the authority on fun.
Football, or soccer, is a worldwide phenomenon because it is the first sport to become a worldwide phenomenon and have regular world cups. It did that because it is incredibly cheap to play and easy to learn. This in turn allows for many people to play the sport and thereby understand it and enjoy watching it.
American football requires lots of equipment to play safely so many people can't play. It depends on strength more where football depends more on stamina. All of these factors contribute to making American football unlikely to become a worldwide phenomenon.
P.S. If you actually talked to American football fans you'd know most hate it when scores run up into the 50's and 60's. They appreciate good defense.
@madasnave In football, a team has to construct a goal, attacking all the way down the pitch. This requires teamwork and skill.
btw ... Baseball is so simple , to the degree that all the rules can be written in a page , all skills can be written in a page , all strategies can be written in a page
sports are meant to be played, not watched. and paying to watch millionaires play a game? ludicrous. ps - Go Hawks!
Unfortunately, the only place the Hawks went this year was back home. I was really looking forward to some more amazing catches by Baldwin and Richardson.
I think that if there was a game where no one ever scored I would watch it and play it just to see if anyone ever scored.
"soccer" is 90 minutes punctuated by a few goals
"american football" is 100+ exciting explosions of activity with rest periods between each one.
american football is thus MUCH easier to watch, because you give it a bit of attention, something exciting happens, then you have a break to chat, eat a chip, whatever. soccer is exhausting to watch, because if you stop playing attention for even a single moment you could miss an incredible play, so you have to give it your full attention for the whole game. It's too much like work. I don't watch sports to exercise my patience.
giving anything your full concentration for long periods of time is mentally exhausting. Classes where the professor has a strong accent are fine for an hour, but after that, I don't hear a word they say because I've been translating so long.
Radio shows have frequent breaks and station identity because it allows for a mental break.
Movies don't try to sustain long term peak excitement because it just gets tiring. Its better to have ups and downs.
So yes, if TV program consumption is "work", then they're doing it wrong.
Perhaps it is different for each person. I personally find the frequent breaks in American Football distracting. Most sports, soccer included, have a half-time break when both players and viewers can have a mental break. If the players can remain focussed on the game for that long, presumably someone simply watching can also do so - though, as I said, it may differ from person to person.
yes, it is good that there are different sports for different personalities and people.
Personally, I LOVE to play soccer. It's a blast, and the constant activity is absolutely a positive for playing the sport. But while I can engage my brain constantly for playing it, I don't want to do so when I feel like chilling.
Watching sports is a social activity for me, and american football is much easier to socialize during because you can give your friends most of your attention, most of the time.
+weesh ful I do think handegg is so popular in the US because tv stations broadcast and advertise it so much more frequently. The thing you said about tension and relaxing makes it that way. They make WAY more money having advertisements every few minutes and three times after quarters than once during a football halftime. And since tv says its exiting it must be. Much like with FOX and republican sheep. Im not saying it isnt exiting. Its just convenient for tv stations and thus much overhyped. You'll notice that with most broadcasted sports in the US like Baseball or Basketball too
MrTohawk I reject your argument (for me personally) on the basis that I didn't enjoy football until I started going to live games. After watching live games, I began to put up with TV treatment, because I had already developed a love of the game.
Also, I mute the TV when I watch TV american football, unless someone else in the room wants the noise on.
Edit:
I'm now realizing that I also went to soccer games live, and it absolutely did not have the same effect on me. I loved being at the game, but because of the people, food, and atmosphere and NOT because of the game. And to reiterate, I like playing soccer more than I like playing american football.
Lindy, don’t make me have President Trump come set you straight........Ohio, USA 🇺🇸
Football is not really a high scoring game. It's just that one touchdown (score, if you will) counts for 6 points (7 with the field goal).
but how many matches end with just one team scoring a single touchdown?
kenijaru True. So, I guess you could call it a "medium scoring" game.
what bores me with hand-egg is that they stop the play every 10 seconds to stand in lines and wait. There is few seconds of action for all the game time.
WinkieTime
you just reminded me of John Cleese ranting about association football vs american football
@erock195 I imagine that you are discussing football. 1. A very high injury rate for a supposedly non-contact sport. 2. Many different ways to score a goal - keeps up the level of fear. 3. No breaks is good - it flows, and they don't stick adverts in on telly (in Britain, at least).
I'd like to posit that *all* field sports are boring to watch :)
+Pyxel Dust I agree. Though I do find it annoying how Europeans hate on Americans for using the word "soccer" when it was created by Britain to differentiate Association Football from Rugby Football. ("soccer" is just shorthand for "association", which I didn't know until recently but now that I do it's pretty obvious)
Just as annoying as Americans who hate on Association Football for being boring, or for players pretending to be hurt (which does happen but it's pretty rare, and probably happens in ALL team-based field sports)
It's fine to make jokes about it, I don't care about that, but people seem to genuinely get upset over these things and believe in them and it's really dumb and obnoxious. I love Lindy but he's no exception, and is better than this.
This is true because the game NBA JAM was programmed to favor the losing team, in order to keep the score close. I just found this out yesterday and that game came out in 1993. They did this because of exactly what you said, if a team gets 25-30 points ahead of the other team, people lose interest. If the video game keeps the scores close, then it keeps it exciting and fun, especially if you start to lose and you are able to catch up and get ahead rather than giving up.
having a sport that ends 0-0 a lot of the time isn't very exiting
+MrWubbles
Cant agree. Until the end the game can always flip in an instant, so it creates tension. Guess it depends if you like foreplay or not^^.
And only non-championship matches can actually end 0-0. The final game can never be a draw, and is thys even mire exciting.
(Edit: F*ck touch screen keyboards, not going to edit that spelling)
+Shining Darkness When it goes onto penalties is my favourite
+Bratzbeerkuchen It just shows that its not a very good test of skill when a games rules over powers defense to offence so heavily. Sure maybe its intense, but if the teams aren't really all that equal then the suspense is artificial. In other sports suspense is created when teams really are both playing really well.
IMO any game that can frequently go scoreless is poorly designed
Delta X
Football games of unequally skilled opponents can reach 2 digits easily.
Why ice hockey is the best sport
>played on ice
>low scoring
>incredibly violent
But you can't see the puck half the time. OK, maybe that doesn't matter if you're watching for the violence.
Note: I am not a sports "fan" but I'd not turn down free tickets
But the counter can also be true, that a nil score game is boring because no-one has actually accomplished anything. Besides that, American football is a relatively low scoring game, as a "touchdown" earns six points; Baseball tends below 10; Hockey is low scoring too.
I can understand your disapproval of Basketball due to your experience
cricket is probably my favourite because of the underlying strategies and the ebb and flow of the bowling and batting relationship, it's brilliant when a fielding side takes time and deliberately sets a batsmen up and then springs it
eatthisvr6 yes cricket is so brilliant as so many different variables affect the outcome like positioning, weather, morale etc
0-0 means nothing happened except in soccer it means a bunch of people fell down and faked injuries.
Where is my comment about the worlds most boring game ever wrong?
My two favorite sports are basketball, a high scoring game, and hockey, which is a low scoring game, and I see no difference. They're both trade-offs, high scoring games aren't massively swayed by a single rare and phenomenal event, but on the other hand, they aren't massively swayed by a single rare and phenomenal event. And both are just shows of athletics anyway, even if your whole team sucks but for one member, you'll just cheer on that person regardless of whether the team itself is doing well.
Why do the British think they own the word football. Soccer ...(and im going to keep calling it that) is just one varient of football that just happens to be the most popular sport across the world. Other Countries like Australia, Ireland and america happen to have their own home grown versions of football. And its in these countries that they tend to prefer to use the word soccer just to avoid confusion.
Then the English get a little upset by this, even tho it was they themselves who came up with the word soccer for that very reason. To distinguish their version of the sport from the others.
Well, there are three main forms of football in Britain; football, rugby football (which is split into league and union), and Gaelic football (Gaelic is played in Scotland too). And I've never heard an Irishman say soccer when referring to football (the few Aussies and Kiwis I've met have just called it football too, not soccer, calling Aussie Rules just that).
But lets look at the origin of various forms of football shall we? Football in general is ancient, but amusingly enough it looks like rugby is the oldest of the modern games, the rules being first recorded and distributed in 1845, with over 75 clubs in the British Isles by 1870, modern football (or soccer if you really want to call it that) is an amalgamation of the Sheffield (1857) and Cambridge (1848) rules, and came about in 1877. Aussie Rules first appears in 1856 and is in pretty much the modern form by 1859. Gaelic football was codified in 1887. The first American football game was played in 1869, and was an amalgamation of Sheffield football and rugby, the modern form of American football (11 players rather than 25) comes about in 1880. I suppose the argument is there to refer to Rugby as merely football. (Inter football is the American football of Gaelic and Aussie Rules).
Yeah, I'm just waffling at this point; but what can I say, I'm a cricketer, it's what we do.
E. A. Deasar Well I am an Irishman. And I can tell you that most of the time the word soccer is used by default over here. Gaelic football Is just football here.
Yes sometimes the word football is used to refer to the English sport. It just depends on the conversation. But by default it tends to be soccer.
Just as an example
www.rte.ie/sport/
It's probably less about the word football referring to the sport you call soccer, it's more about "American football" being called football for no logical reason whatsoever...
***** I'm not saying that one sport deserves the word football more than the other. And I'm definitely not trying to say that soccer shouldn't be called football.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are practical reasons why people might use the word soccer over football. And its not necessarily because of ignorance or just to get on peoples nerves.
And yea I know about the where the word "soccer" comes from. :)
jagerbomb7810 Because you hardly use your foot and only to someone with serious eye problems would you call it a "ball". That's like calling "soccer" handball because the keeper uses his hands to block an incoming shot. Or calling basketball "nuts and screwball" because you use those to connect the basket to the pole. It makes no sense and on top of that you guys replace actual name of football with "soccer". And actual football (the English kind) existed WELL before American football. American football's rules are basically based around commercials, that in itself shows you it is a very young sport, tailored to fit advertising and merchandising. Football has been around in one way or another eve before Columbus discovered America.
American football has only recently become high scoring, and this is really more of a generational trend. It is mostly a game a defense
This is an indictment of basketball more than anything else. Keep in mind, baseball rarely has double digit scores (about 4-3 is my subjective impression of average), hockey is the same way, and for gridiron football, divide the score by 7 to get a real sense of the game. We don't like soccer.... cause its European. I said it. We don't like it because you like it.
+Alex Walters
Football (soccer) is not european, it's the closest thing to a global game that there is. If you wanted to argue that it was European/South American you'd have a better case.
No... It really is European. And I say that to piss off the Brits who don't like to be called European. It is a British sport, invented in the UK, and spread during it's golden age of empire. American Football is derived from the same British sport.
Alex Walters
It was certainly invented in Britain, yes. But my point is calling it European is a bit disingenuous when 3/5 of the most sucessful football nations are South American. Football is also played more in south and central america as a proportion of the population.
Japan is the champion of the first two World Championships of American Football, a full 2/5ths of championships awarded. It is not a Japanese sport. (for completeness sake, the United States did not compete in the first two tournaments.) Soccer is a British sport. It does not matter who ELSE plays it, it's British.
Alex Walters
If you want to define a sport's nationality by where it was invented go ahead. By that standard I agree, football (soccer) is british.
However you don't seem to have addressed my point. It's disingenuous to say that football is European (in a general sense) when it is more popular in South America and that's also where the most successful nations are. Japan winning two "world championships" in American football is in no way comparable.
I also think you know this already. I'm not particularly interested in a teeth pulling exercise, so if you want to be arbitrary and silly go ahead.
The good thing about high scoring game is that if the game is close towards the end, which it often is, then you are guarantee an exciting finish of having a big/game-winning shot or a game winning defensive play. Team also go on scoring runs (lots of points scored by one side in a short period of time) in high scoring games which is exciting, even if it's not as exciting as a goal in a low scoring game.
You're absolutely right on Basketball, but American Football isn't (despite the fairly high scores) a high scoring game. It's a game with a variety of scoring methods. 6-8 points is typical for the primary goal type while 3 is standard for the secondary goal type. There is considerable backfield, midfield, and goal line action. It's often viewed as dull because of the breaks in the action, which is a fair criticism, but a game of 42-30 is still possible with one side only scoring 6 goals and the other side, the loosing side, paradoxically having scored 10. And that makes it nail biting... but it also provides considerably more joy moments than watching 2 teams run up and down a field for an hour with no one accomplishing anything at all. I'd rather have a nail biter at 3-3 than a nail biter at 0-0... which is why hockey is better than soccer. Still, I prefer sports that aren't on the basketball/hockey/lacross/soccer model, as they're essentially all the same... an unbroken blur of back and forth. I prefer sports with natural breaks, like american football, but also like volleyball, baseball, cricket, or tennis. And Baseball is definately lower scoring than Cricket. So that's one for us Yanks, at least.
In AFL there is a TON of excitement when someone scores a goal and a single goal often decides the match. The scores ARE higher but if every football (soccer) goal was worth 6 points the score would be about the same
But... rugby?
It’s harder to score in rugby because they have to play the ball back all the time.
James Mac fucking ace sport tho, and I guess it's in the happier middle of not too many actual scoring actions (i.e. tries and goal kicking etc.) but also not too few. nearer the fewer end though.
paul paulio I agree. :)
In the sense that Lloyd is talking about, rugby could still be called a low scoring game (hear me out first). Yes, each score is worth many points, but the actual number of tries in game between equal teams is most often less than three each. This is considerably less than the number of baskets or touchdowns you would expect in an nba of nfl match. However cricket throws a spanner into the works (although many would also call test cricket boring).
Many years ago, when I was 12years old I joined the school Rugby team. Not the First XV - the 'first year' XV - that is the first year of secondary (high) school.
The team was mainly comprised of novice players, and in our very first match, representing the school, against another school's first year XV, (in their first match), we drew..........0 - 0...😂.
An inauspicious beginning.
We did end up significantly better, but 0 - 0 is a rare event in a rugby match.
@mexicohigh I think you'll find that in football both teams spend the whole game trying to score.
Comedy movies are bad, dramas are good. Oh wait, perhaps some things are subjective.
nomad8723 Not a good example though. But in a way, yes apples and oranges.
I agree with most of what you said, but as a sort of neutral nba fan I think one of the joys in watching is seeing the skill level and spectacular athleticism on display. And buzzer-beater game winners are one of the most excisting thing in sports.
What do you think about hockey?
Which hockey.
Canadian Ice Hockey, the only real hockey m8
The British are the ones that invented the word soccer. Also american football has a kick after every point at least. As well as the game starts with a kick. As does the second half. In football(soccer) there are throw ins and the goalie uses his hands.
+Epcot lp (dawnqwerty) But not "sarkrr".
As an American who loved playing "soccer" - Soccer is insufferably dull to watch.
You've got to get excited whenever a team gets close to scoring in soccer. It's not my cup of tea but I can see the appeal. I'll watch the world cup but that's it
how is it dull?
do they stop the match every 30 seconds to reset everyone in a nice formation? every time someone gets the ball 10 meters down the field? oh? that's american football? my bad.
don't know what dullness you're referring to.
in soccer the ball is always moving, a pass is always being made and the teams who play the game well move fast and make passes across the entire field that the other person has to dribble or shoot like a cannon into the net.
some of them can even bend it while it flies in the air like a fighter aircraft, by kicking the ball with ninja skills so it bends in the air like in the matrix.
@@basteagui "curving the bullet" was from the movie Wanted, not the Matrix. In the Matrix they stopped bullets mid air, in Wanted they curved bullets by swinging their arm while firing a gun. Get your ridiculous impossible movie activity references right!
@@pyramear5414 ah yes, my bad it was wanted, weapons of destiny :D with james mcavoy. how could i mix them up
Americans love seeing the highlight reels you can easily compile in a score-heavy sports like basketball and football. Low scoring sports doesn't have too many score highlight reels.
You see, Americans want to see goals, and topping one goal over the other in a single game is a must.
+sukotsutoclone Football isn't really that high scoring of a game, it just seems that way because scoring always gives more than one point.
Just here to fucking say that it wasn't the Americans who coined the term 'soccer'
+StickWarrior They are the ones who insist on using it, however.
And? It makes perfect sense to use that word here. If someone's upset, they ought to be upset with the originators.
The originators don't matter anymore. However upset I may be with them, they're gone now. We who use the language are trusted to do so sensibly, and by and large we haven't. That's what I'm getting at.
What? Of course they matter.
It makes perfect sense here to use the terms football and soccer.
If you're upset with the word, it's not our own invention.
You seem silly.
I'm also upset with its use, at which point it makes sense to blame those using it. Ultimately, however, I am a bit silly, so just keep on keeping on.
Jay Leno said when the World Cup was held in Los Angeles he tried to get into watching it. He watched a game that after two hours the score was still Zero to Zero. Observed it was like watching the Spice Girls on Jeopardy.
so then I can assume you are an avid baseball fan.
Baseball is far superior to football ( american). It is not quite a low-scoring sport, but is a very good mid-ground.
+Shining Darkness American football is actually a lower scoring sport than baseball. Since you'd divide by 7 (1 score is 7), most games don't go over more than a few scores. In almost all cases, less than 10 scores. So the scoring system is actually about the same as Association Football, and that's mostly because a majority of the rules are the same. American Football is just Rubgy (except of course with field passes, which is the major difference), and Rugby is just Soccer with hands. For a while, bot Rugby Football and Association Football were very popular in the UK, but rugby has pretty much died as a sport which is why Europe stopped using "soccer" as a term because it's not necessary anymore. They can just call Association Football even though that's not completely accurate. It's the same situation with Americans calling gridiron "football". It's just done because it's the most popular form in the country.
In places where rugby is the most popular, that's called football for them and they refer to american football as gridiron and association football as soccer or association (which means the same thing, "soccer" is just shorthand for association)
The suspense isn't necessarily from low scores it's from consistently close scores. It's easier to have that in a sport where the average team scores 3 times per game versus something like basketball with 40. However, another thing to remember about sports like American football is that most scoring actions are worth multiple points, with the largest single action worth 6. As a result a point difference of 6 or less is a close game. In basketball a point difference of less than 10 is often considered a close game as most scoring actions are worth 2 or 3 points each and teams score very frequently.
Did anyone else blow out a kidney laughing when he said "soccer"? That was amazing, you went from british to full blown canadian on that one. Oh, I love it. Come to think of it, why do we even call ours "american football" around the world when we should just get a new name for it... like armpitball. Hell, I'd pay to see a blitzball tournament, rename it blitzball!
ᚲᚱᛖᛏᚨᚨᛚ Gridiron
@Nightmonkey17 Long periods of inactivity? Are you sure you were playing football?
This is exactly why I have always hated basketball. On the other hand, I think soccer(I'll call it that to avoid ambiguity) goes too far in the opposite direction. There needs to be at least some scoring to make it exciting. Otherwise the game is rather...pointless.
Sure a game that's 0-0 in the last few minutes might be exciting in some ways, but only if people are at least getting a good CHANCE to score. If most of the "action" is just happening in midfield, it's far less exciting. And if they're getting that many good scoring chances, the odds are that the game wouldn't be 0-0 in the first place.
And you could get the same effect of knowing the next goal will probably decide the game with a score of 3-3 in the last minute. Plus you'd have had the excitement of seeing those 6 points being scored in the first place. All other things being equal, seeing someone score is probably going to be far more exciting than seeing them NOT score.
Meanwhile, if a soccer game does reach a score of 3-0 or probably even 2-0, it's pretty much over. With a higher scoring game like American football, it's entirely possible to be down 2 touchdowns within the last couple minutes and still come back to tie or win the game. Some of the best games I've seen were ones that ended this way.
I'd say American football and ice hockey have a pretty good balance of scoring often enough to make it exciting while still not having it happen SO often that each individual point scored becomes almost irrelevant. Both sports of course have other problems, but at least this is one thing that I think they got right.
The fewer the number of scores in a game, the more likely it is that the outcome of the game will be do to random chance. The higher the number of scores, the more likely it is that the outcome is due to the fact that one of the teams is better. It's a simple matter of probability theory. Now, over the course of a season, large numbers will even things out and the better teams will win... but ESPECIALLY in a situation where there is a single-elimination tournament with low-scoring games (like the World Cup), outcomes will be affected much more strongly by random chance rather than the quality of the team.
+smirkypants Especially when some games are allowed to come down to penalty shoot outs. God that's a terrible way to decide a game. Exciting maybe, but certainly not a fair decider
The NFL and college football should listen to this rant. Stop doing games overseas. It's not going to happen.
Thank you as an American I agree a 1000%
a good game of american football is low scoring.
Handball is a high scoring sport and it´s really exciting to watch. It´s true that a game stops getting exciting when the other team is way ahead, but try watching a game when the teams are almost tied the whole game, then it´s a triumph when the goalkeeper blocks the ball.
And the same applies to low scoring sports like football it stops being exciting when it´s 2-0 but is exciting when it´s so close.
That's why hockey is the best sport.
low scoring is often what people complain about but i think what they really mean is that actions that matter happen less often. Once i watched an hockey game where both teams suddenly started to play like it was soccer. It took less than a minute before people started booing. It wasn't a low scoring game either It really was just about how not much happened.
if a team has a 30point deficit and they manage to comeback its a lot more enjoyable because of how unlikely that is. Also the fact that 15 interactions had to be won to come back makes it a lot less about luck and a lot more about skill which makes that comeback more of a "we rose to the occasion" than simply something that happened and that feels better.
on top of that it kind of slowly sets up an ending where all the hardwork of the first 14 interactions you won suddenly depend on the next attempt which makes it more exciting than if any one interaction can end the game.
it doesn't even have to be a comeback...If a game is close who is winning and who is losing changes all the time and that gets exponentially exciting as the game comes to an end.
high variance is also not such a great thing in the long run. a low scoring game should have more variance than a high scoring one which means that if my team has a skill level of 10 and i play a team at a skill level of 12 its very possible that i will win trough variance. on the other hand if there is less variance i can't really expect to beat a team 2 skill levels above me but If we do manage to beat that team at some point in the next year its more likely a result of improvement than simple variance and that makes it more valuable.
Nothing you said is only applicable to low-scoring games. American football often has games where the winning side is only one score ahead, and it's totally possible for a soccer game to be a blowout and uninteresting.
Even speaking to British soccer fans they tell me it's the atmosphere and the chants that keep them occupied just as much as the match.
A note about the term football, it is to my understanding that football is a generic term for any sport played with a ball on foot. Not the shape of the ball or which particular part of the body is used to move the ball.
I'm Canadian and totally agree with you.
I’ve never found joy in watching other people play a game of any variety, though I don’t knock anyone else who does.
I believe you just don't really get basketball. First of all that's kind of how all american sports are, if you go to a soccer, baseball or hockey game you'll see the same thing as far as food and trinket floggers go. Most people don't actually buy anything from them because they're incredibly overpriced. Secondly, none of the things you're saying are really true of basketball. If you're invested, it's tremendously satisfying when your team scores, and always worrying when the other team does. Games are quite a lot of the time won by quite small margins, so even though there's a lot of scoring, any extra will make or break a game. Also there is upcourt play, press defenses especially in college commit a lot to badgering the ball-handlers into giving up all manner of turnovers. And as for winning or losing by a lot, the same is true for low scoring games, if your team were up by 3 or 4 in soccer and there's only minutes left it's clearly over. It doesn't happen much but then again
Neither do blowouts in basketball. And they can also be entertaining to watch if your team is winning, just to see how badly they can beat another team. Basketball is my favorite sport and I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it but most of the things you named are either not usually the case or else I think you've missed the point.
In case anyone is wondering the real reason why football/soccer doesn't play in the states is because there aren't enough breaks in the action to show car and prescription drug commercials. As Lloyd touched on here, in a high scoring sport they can risk missing some play while the ads are playing and its not as big of a deal.
All sports are dull. No exceptions.
Playing sports is extremely fun and extremely good for you. And when you play a certain sport it's fun to see it being played professionally.
> "Playing sports is extremely fun and extremely good for you."
Not if you're no good at it. Nobody likes being chosen last.
> "And when you play a certain sport it's fun to see it being played professionally."
Most of the fatties I see buying up the superbowl grub every year obviously haven't been anywhere near the gym let alone the field.
What about e-sports?
Robot Wars. Geeky sure but you get flamethrowers, circular saws and such to watch. And there is no room for ambiguity when the loser is a smoldering wreck by the end of it.
Solid points. The excitement comes with close scoring games depending on which team your playing and what level they are playing. I enjoy college sports more because they are more technical than professional teams since professional teams tend to just focus on scoring. With American football its about the allowed violence that comes with it.
I've never been to a basketball game with a waitress. The only time I've ever been to a sporting event with a waitress was a box seat at a Nascar track. High scores do a better job of making luck less relevant though.
That said the only sports I don't find dull happen to be pretty low scoring, but they also involve contact (except rally racing, rallycross, motocross & horseraces) & people don't fake being hit to get their team the advantage of having other players carded.
BillyJoe1305
Don't mean to necro your post, but if you are referring to what I think you are, don't forget about good ol' Cindy Crysbi as an exception to your rule. ;)
I've never been to a sporting event with a waitress either. I don't know any waitresses, and I'm married anyway.
It's not the goal that matters, it's how the goal was scored. If you want to enjoy basketball, you watch the process in which the score was formed. You know, tactics. In football, there may be one play where they have a properly executed score rather than a goal by random shuffle. It's a fleeting excitement seeing how the only the score matters instead of actually looking at the players playing.
Lindy my man, Soccer isn't boring because it's low scoring, soccer is boring because the midfield "action" doesn't exist. Kick ball, run to ball, kick ball, run to ball...maaaaaaybe complete a pass without a turnover, kick ball, run to ball....ops guy caught an elbow, let's roll around for 10 minutes. THAT is why soccer sucks.
And while I am not a fan of "handegg", by your definition it would be considered a low scoring sport, just each "goal" counts for more than 1 point. So 21-0 would more or less be 3-0 in "football", which is not unheard of.
Seriously though Lindy, do yourself a favor and at some point in your life come to Chicago for a hockey game. Feel free to use that environment for your catalyst on Amer-Euro sports comparisons for now on...I implore you. Just don't try to run to the "loo" while play is active if you enjoy your face in the arrangement it is currently in. (joking of course...kind of)
TheRush05 Hockey is the closest analogue to football we have in the USA. It's practically the same game only with more contact and a faster pace.
M, I'd disagree. I'd say lacrosse, especially in-door lacrosse is far more comparable than football ever could be. I don't enjoy football because of how play-centric, skill specific it is. Hockey is so much more on the fly general skill required kind of game, that I think football and hockey are basically incomparable..I guess they are both sports is a good comp.
+TheRush05 Being European, he would call it "ice hockey". They call field hockey "hockey".
Worth also considering how often in a game of football a scenario like this happens: A team might be winning a game 1-0 from a goal scored in the first half, or 2-1, 3-2 etc. If the trailing team manage to get an equalizing goal in the 80th odd minute, they then have all the momentum with them for the final 10. That more often than not makes an unbelievably exciting (or, for the defending team, excruciatingly unbearable) 10 minutes of football where the team that was sitting quite comfortably 1 goal ahead for most of the match are now desperately holding on for the full time whistle.
What about hockey?
Celtic704 I think it's easily the best.
You don't get so many goals that they don't seem tense, but it usually happens in the game, where as in Football matches with no goals are too common for my tastes.
Then there are other things that make it better imo. It takes way more skill, it's got a faster pace most of the time, matches are shorter, it has more physicality and violence etc.
_and of course my country is way better at it than football_
Controlling ball or puck with your feet is harder than controlling with your hand (even when you are using some kind of bat or stick), so football takes more skill.
Matches take actually longer time in ice hockey because the clock is not running when the game is paused and also there are extra time on even match each time (football there are extra time only in some cup-competitions). Violence is generally prohibited in life because it is dangerous and stupid... Hockey has more harsh physical contacts but on the other hand there are a lot of physical battles in football too.
And it is much easier to do better in game that has 6 countries playing it seriously than in football that has hundreds of millions players from all over the globe
lasse nikulainen I agree that floorball takes less skill than football, but I think you're forgetting that hockey players are *skating* not running, while moving and shooting a puck (not a ball) off the ground. Anybody can play football (one of the reasons it's so popular) but even just playing Ice Hockey for fun takes a lot of practice, especially as most people can't skate and even less people can hit a puck off the ice (even in countries where ice sports are popular).
The matches are longer if you count breaks after rounds, but I don't tend to count those (but you're right I guess).
It not being as popular isn't really invalidating my point? It's still the sport my country does best in and I like supporting my country. It was also a half joke, which is why it was in italic.
lasse nikulainen hockey takes way more still than soccer and unlike soccer real men play hockey and don't cry like bitches when fouled. They just get info a bare knuckle fist fight to settle their differences
@DAOzz83 Yes, and the low-scoring nature of baseball improves it, does it not? I never said that all American sports were high-scoring.
"Soccer" is the largest youth sport in the USA. Of my generation, no ones parents played. I picked up the game in elementary school and ended up getting a scholarship to play in college. The youth of today are really the the first to have had a parent even play the sport.
I'm an American and I fully agree with every point made in this video.