Football vs. American "Football"?

[Danoff]

Danoff,

I'm with you up until the scoring argument...

I've seen college basketball games that have a combined score of less than one NBA team'stypical score per game - yet the college game was more exciting.

That's because basketball suffers from the opposite problem, too much scoring. You can't celebrate a score in basketball because there'll be another one in 5 seconds.

In football the better team does win most of the time. That doesn't mean the better team should win every time, if a sport is too predicatable it's boring. You might as well just award the points and skip the game. Personally one reason I prefer football is because there's fewer goals, it keeps you on the edge of your seat more. Do you go defensive after getting a 1 goal lead or do you plough on with attacking play trying to get that 2 goal lead leaving you defence a bit weaker. There's a lot of tactics in football, different formations take different types of play to get around, some teams play to take out the mid-field, some teams play thruogh the center. Some teams play behind the ball and only attack on the break aways. The formation in football can change several times in a game, you'll get one player starting on the left wing, switching to the right then back to the left. Or you'll get a player starting in mid-field and finishing in attack or vice versa. Theres a large technical aspect to football, playing offside traps, man marking and prepared set peices. That's not to say there isn't a big tactical aspect to Aemrican football, it's just the way they're implemented in the sport imo is much better in football.

American football has different formations and strategies on every play. In fact, the QB has to deal with fake formations from the defense to make it look like they're formed one way when in fact they're going to play a different way entirely. If he thinks he figured it out and the offense isn't set up to take advantage, he changes the formation on the line. That's technical, and it's leadership. The technical aspect of football is heightened by time in between plays to analyze, communicate and adjust. They get to adjust in between plays, in between periods, during timeouts, at half-time. All of these give the team that's losing an opportunity to find their opponent's weakness and get back into the game. You simply can't have as much analysis (from a spectator or coaching point of view) if you rarely break the action on the field.

I think most of the time the better team should win, but allowing the teams to adjust means that figuring out which team is better, or matched better against their opponent's strengths, is a difficult proposition. Going into an American football game it's very difficult to figure out how the two teams will match up. You can see some obvious trends, but you never know exactly how they'll fare. There's more of an intangible coaching battle, where a team that you wouldn't think has a shot can kill the opposition because they've analyzed their opponents better. Despite the violent nature, American football is far more of a chess match, or war, than soccer.

 

[Tornado]

Edit: And this wasn't meant to be offensive. I just think there are more important things that could be discussed than 2 sports that share a similar name.

Yes. That time could be spent curing cancer. For shame.

The achillies heel of soccer for me is that lack of scoring, and that lack of any real progress toward scoring. Like hockey, there are way too few goals in a game, and each goal is almost completely unexpected. Sure, you knew they'd managed to get the ball set up properly, you watched them set up the offense, you saw the kick, you saw the goalie try to react - but did you really know it would go in? It didn't go in the 10 previous times, so why does any of the rest of that count as real progress toward a goal? But in American football, you can see progress being made, you can see yardage being gained. You see when the team essentially has 3 points in their back pocket and watch them sacrfice it for another 4. Even if the team punts they keep the field position they gained and attempt not to lose it on defense. The game can go between many possessions that are scoreless, but the progress toward scoring is visible. There are also many WAYS to score. The field goal, the extra point, the 2 point conversion, the safety, and of course the touchdown.

I'd have to agree up to a point. The problem with soccer can be (occasionally) frequented to if you have two star players (lets say, center and goalie) you can win the game over a better overall team.
That being said, soccer is more fun to play than football, in my opinion, for that very reason. If your good at it (I am), you get alot of ball time. Even if you aren't good with it there is a pretty good chance you will be able to have a feeling of accomplishment toward your victory because you directly helped the team win. For example, in football if the team wins it is because everyone worked together. The feeling of personal accomplishment gives way to feeling of accomplishment as a team.
In soccer, however, if you pass the ball to the center and he scores after that pass, hey! You got an assist. Its a great feeling to do such, more so than (for example) blocking someone who was about to tackle your teammate before they reached the endzone in my opinion.

 

[Danoff]

I'd have to agree up to a point. The problem with soccer can be (occasionally) frequented to if you have two star players (lets say, center and goalie) you can win the game over a better overall team.
That being said, soccer is more fun to play than football, in my opinion, for that very reason. If your good at it (I am), you get alot of ball time. Even if you aren't good with it there is a pretty good chance you will be able to have a feeling of accomplishment toward your victory because you directly helped the team win. For example, in football if the team wins it is because everyone worked together. The feeling of personal accomplishment gives way to feeling of accomplishment as a team.
In soccer, however, if you pass the ball to the center and he scores after that pass, hey! You got an assist. Its a great feeling to do such, more so than (for example) blocking someone who was about to tackle your teammate before they reached the endzone in my opinion.

I don't know which one I'd rather play. I think it's a little more fun to throw the ball around than kick it around, but that's really just a personal opinion with nothing backing it up. I was really talking about these sports from the spectators point of view.

 

[Tornado]

I was really talking about these sports from the spectators point of view.

I understand. I was just using my agreement with your point to tangent off into my opinion on how much fun each is to actually play.

 

[Evolution.]

I just realized I voted for the wrong football.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Soccer here in america is what kids do until they figure out what their hands are for.

 

[Keef]

Then they take up solo sports, right? That's what I did.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Then they take up solo sports, right? That's what I did.

More then solo, as in Baseball, Basketball or anything that takes hand eye coordination.

 

[Danoff]

Soccer here in america is what kids do until they figure out what their hands are for.

So you're saying right around the time they enter puberty they figure out what their hands are for and suddenly have something more entertaining to do than kick a ball around? It almost sounds like you're suggesting that...


...yup that sounds about right.

 

[Keef]

I guess I should have made my point a little harder. Sheesh.

 

[Casio]

I do find Aussie Rule sentertaining, but can I ask, how many broken necks have there been? There's a lot of falls from high up!

As far as I know, only one. Back in the 1970s, someone did end up a paraplegic. However, last year someone was in a coma for about 3 days and lost a kidney.

I will admit. A lot of serious injuries happen. This was one of the worst last year.


But in a sport where the following is regarded as 'fair play', you can't really complain, you know the risks.

 

[UnoMOTO]

So you're saying right around the time they enter puberty they figure out what their hands are for and suddenly have something more entertaining to do than kick a ball around? It almost sounds like you're suggesting that...


...yup that sounds about right.

Sad...but very true!

 

[Sureboss]

Any given baseball game is difficult to predict as well - but that doesn't make it a good sport, that makes it a very bad one. The better team should win most of the time. That makes the sport both predictable and fair instead of a crapshoot. When you only get two points in the entire game and it's enough to win the game for you, you start dealing with a lot of luck.

So you don't like the 'big' teams losing to the 'lesser' teams then?

What's the point in watching a sport if it's predictable.

 

[FoolKiller]

Now I know an American Football is different in shape to a rugby ball (Hell, I even have one), but I'm sure if my mates and myself can drop kick on down the park on less than ideal surfaces, professionals can drop kick one on nice level astro turf!

You also play football (soccer) correct? Guess where American football finds many of its kickers.

Also, the "ideal" surface is not always ideal. I've seen many games where the turf was in horrible shape due to rain, snow, or the players tearing it up. I can't remember the turf condition in Doug Flutie's situation, but I assure you, this was no easy task - even for a professional.

Considering it was the last game of the regular season I am betting that the condition was poor. By that point in time the middle of the field is usually yellowish, dead at best and a muddy puddle at worst.

I'm not saying it's too hard to do it. It's just that with so many other choices of scoring, the drop-kick is the least used... probably why it hasn't been used since.

I've seen very little of rugby to be able to make a positive assumption, but I'm going to guess that since the play doesn't end as often as it does in NFL football, the players have more than one chance to do a drop kick during a drive.

It was for an extra point kick, which I believe is the only time it is allowed. When an extra point kick is expected then you must face off against a defensive strategy to stop the kick, which means multiple 250lb guys running at you as fast as possible. You have, at best, four seconds after the ball is hiked to get the kick off. Thsi means that by the time the ball is actually in his hands he has about two seconds to set it up and then make sure it is over 8-9 feet in the air before it goes forward one yard, and then it still has to go about 20 yards forward while remaining more than ten feet up and centered within an 18.5 foot width.

It isn't as easy as it sounds for someone who never kicks a ball.

I've seen college basketball games that have a combined score of less than one NBA team'stypical score per game - yet the college game was more exciting.

That's because professional basketball is a showboating game and has little actual gameplay. They might as well just have a shooting competition.

I don't know which one I'd rather play. I think it's a little more fun to throw the ball around than kick it around, but that's really just a personal opinion with nothing backing it up. I was really talking about these sports from the spectators point of view.

As for playing, I like to use all my available appendages. When I play football (soccer) I have this urge to use my hands. Plus, I can throw more accurately than I can kick so I am just better at American football.

 

[Famine]

As for playing, I like to use all my available appendages. When I play football (soccer) I have this urge to use my hands. Plus, I can throw more accurately than I can kick so I am just better at American football.

Sounds like a goalkeeper to me.

 

[Dave A]

What's the point in watching a sport if it's predictable.

Exactley, like I said before you might as well just award the points and skip the match if it's predictable.

Sounds like a goalkeeper to me.

I was thinking that.

 

[TheCracker]

For me, the reason why football (soccer) wins over any of the full contact ball games like American football, Aussie rules football or Rugby, is the simple reason that it can be played absolutely anywhere. You can play on grass, sand, concrete, indoor or outdoor without limiting the rules at all and with a minimum of only two players.

Having said that, i do really enjoy the spectacle that is American Football. I watched the highlights of a couple of the NFL Superbowl playoffs last night (Dallas vs Seattle and Eagles vs Giants) for the first time in years and had forgotten just what good entertainment it is. I've never been to watch a Premiership Football match but i have been to see the LA Rams vs the LA Raiders in a pre-season match.

 

[Specialized]

Having said that, i do really enjoy the spectacle that is American Football. I watched the highlights of a couple of the NFL Superbowl playoffs last night (Dallas vs Seattle and Eagles vs Giants) for the first time in years and had forgotten just what good entertainment it is. I've never been to watch a Premiership Football match but i have been to see the LA Rams vs the LA Raiders in a pre-season match.

I too watched the highlights last night and it was pretty entertaining but by the same token watching a live match bores me to death. The play for 30 seconds stop for 5 minutes routine gets on my nerves, and they have the cheek to act tired after the game too!

Spec....

 

[FoolKiller]

Sounds like a goalkeeper to me.

Oddly enough that is where I tended to get stuck playing the few times I played. I would instinctually swat a ball down or catch it if it hit me, plus I had zero ball control with my feet. So, goalie it was because I had no qualms about sacrificing my body. Unfortunately, the last time I played I was maybe 14 and too small and slow to effectively protect the goal. I think I would be better now that I am a good bit taller and less clumsy.

For me, the reason why football (soccer) wins over any of the full contact ball games like American football, Aussie rules football or Rugby, is the simple reason that it can be played absolutely anywhere. You can play on grass, sand, concrete, indoor or outdoor without limiting the rules at all and with a minimum of only two players.

Two people can play American football, you just have to make a few minor adjustments. And if you have ever seen pre-game tailgating you will know that any surface is playable after some alcohol is injested.

Having said that, i do really enjoy the spectacle that is American Football. I watched the highlights of a couple of the NFL Superbowl playoffs last night (Dallas vs Seattle and Eagles vs Giants) for the first time in years and had forgotten just what good entertainment it is. I've never been to watch a Premiership Football match but i have been to see the LA Rams vs the LA Raiders in a pre-season match.

That must have been a few years back as they are now the St. Louis Rams (my team) and the Oakland Raiders. "The Raiders moved from Oakland to LA and then back to Oakland, and no one in LA seemed to notice."

I too watched the highlights last night and it was pretty entertaining but by the same token watching a live match bores me to death. The play for 30 seconds stop for 5 minutes routine gets on my nerves, and they have the cheek to act tired after the game too!

Spec....

It sounds like you guys need to watch some of the NFL's Greatest Games series. My personal favorite is the '81 NFC Championship. It's probably because I thought Joe Montana was awesome when I was a kid.

I wouldn't look to buy those, but anything like that you can find would be great because they take out the breaks, add in suspenseful music, and a narrator goes through the game. It takes a full game and makes it only about an hour and a half.

I know we get to see them on one of the ESPN stations or the NFL Network occasionally.

 

[TheCracker]

That must have been a few years back as they are now the St. Louis Rams (my team) and the Oakland Raiders. "The Raiders moved from Oakland to LA and then back to Oakland, and no one in LA seemed to notice."

'92 - Anaheim Stadium

 

[zoxxy]

For me, the reason why football (soccer) wins over any of the full contact ball games like American football, Aussie rules football or Rugby, is the simple reason that it can be played absolutely anywhere. You can play on grass, sand, concrete, indoor or outdoor without limiting the rules at all and with a minimum of only two players.

Having said that, i do really enjoy the spectacle that is American Football. I watched the highlights of a couple of the NFL Superbowl playoffs last night (Dallas vs Seattle and Eagles vs Giants) for the first time in years and had forgotten just what good entertainment it is. I've never been to watch a Premiership Football match but i have been to see the LA Rams vs the LA Raiders in a pre-season match.

I too watched the highlights last night and it was pretty entertaining but by the same token watching a live match bores me to death. The play for 30 seconds stop for 5 minutes routine gets on my nerves, and they have the cheek to act tired after the game too!

Spec....

Aaahh!!! Your avatars are almost the same!!

 

[TheCracker]

There's a reason for that

 

[Danoff]

Exactley, like I said before you might as well just award the points and skip the match if it's predictable.

It has to be somewhat predictable to be a sport. Anything less than random is somewhat predictable, and random is not a sport.

 

[FoolKiller]

It has to be somewhat predictable to be a sport. Anything less than random is somewhat predictable, and random is not a sport.

So Cow Chip Bingo doesn't count?



OK, I guess it's technically gambling.

 

[Dave A]

What I'm talking about is each individual match, in any match the lesser team must always have a realistic chance of winning or drawing, if they don't then the game and the sport can become boring. I want a sport to keep me on the edge of my seat, and football does that for me. The fact that a game can be lost or won with a 1 goal difference keeps games tight. I'm not talking about a sport being random, but not so predictable that the better team will always win. In any given match the lesser team should have a realistic chance of getting a win or draw from the game, if they don't the match can become boring and repetetive.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not talking about a sport being random, but not so predictable that the better team will always win. In any given match the lesser team should have a realistic chance of getting a win or draw from the game, if they don't the match can become boring and repetetive.

Well, every sport has the chance of an upset. Thats why you have odds makers when you bet on sports. There is always a chance that the lesser team can win.

 

[Dave A]

Yeah but it's how close each individual game is. In some sports you get one team winning by 10, 15 maybe more points. Football is a lot closer, gmaes are very open. Take the Premiership, anyone can beat anyone in the Premiership, the top half of the league is very tight with only a couple of results seperating the top teams. It's fantastic, who's have thought Liverpool would have come back from 3-0 down at half time to win the Champions league a couple of years ago, or that Manchester united would score two goals in extra time to beat Bayern Munich ito win the same trophy back in 1999. Or when Blackburn Rovers won the Premiership, the title was decided in the last game of the season. Football is scarilly close when you get to the top competitions.

 

[Danoff]

OK, I guess it's technically gambling.

Even most gambling is predictable (not truly random) "house wins".

Yeah but it's how close each individual game is. In some sports you get one team winning by 10, 15 maybe more points. Football is a lot closer, gmaes are very open. Take the Premiership, anyone can beat anyone in the Premiership, the top half of the league is very tight with only a couple of results seperating the top teams. It's fantastic, who's have thought Liverpool would have come back from 3-0 down at half time to win the Champions league a couple of years ago, or that Manchester united would score two goals in extra time to beat Bayern Munich ito win the same trophy back in 1999. Or when Blackburn Rovers won the Premiership, the title was decided in the last game of the season. Football is scarilly close when you get to the top competitions.

Too close... almost to the point of randomness.

 

[Dave A]

But it's not random, it never is. It's tactical. If you arn't that familiar with football tactics you won't notice. It's just not as easy to predict because the tactics on the pitch can change very often, there's just no stopping the game to discuss them which is good because that's something that makes American football a lot less interesting than rugby imo.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah but it's how close each individual game is. In some sports you get one team winning by 10, 15 maybe more points.

Well, in American football a touchdown is six points, so being down by 10-14 points can be a matter of just two scores. And trust me anyone can comeback. Sometimes it is so unexpected that even the TV network has left the game (see Heidi Bowl)

And in sports liek basketball a 10+ margin of victory means little when you consider a strategy to stop the clock when you are close is to foul, but it allows the opponent to make one or two free shots. If things don't work out right a 5 point game (two score difference) can turn into a 10-15 point game.

In games where clocks don't stop, like soccer, or where there is no clock, like baseball, then it can easily be a 1 or two point game.

Even most gambling is predictable (not truly random) "house wins".

Well, in my example it is basically a raffle where you are donating money to play against other players. The house doesn't figure in.

Too close... almost to the point of randomness.

Actually I think that if basketball and American football only had one point scores it would appear much closer. But because we award points based on the difficulty of the act used to score we are given larger margins to showcase the difference in how the teams score.

For example, if the Liverpool game mentioned by L4S were American football, they would have been down by 21-24 points. A comeback like that in the Super Bowl would be equally amazing. You could compare it to the Red Sox being down three games to none in the league championship to win seven straight games to win the World Series. It wasn't random, they were a talented team that just got motivated at the last minute.

Do you consider American football games being won by a last second field goal to be random, or can you attribute it to the offense doing just enough to help the special teams win the game because time was getting short (or to the opposing defense making one stop less than needed)?

I'll never hold anything against soccer for low scores (I like baseball too), but no game should end in a tie unless there is some risk to a player's life.