Football vs. American "Football"?

[Danoff]

But it's not random, it never is. It's tactical.

It's closer to random. When scoring almost never occurs, one lucky play can win the game. When scoring occurs too often, one unlucky play can lose the game. When scoring occurs just right, luck rarely wins the game for you.

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.

The stopping makes American football much more strategic than soccer, which makes it a more intellectual game (yes I did just say that). It's not necessarily intellectual on the part of each individual player (see offensive linemen for example), but it is definitely intellectual on the part of the coach and in properly executing creative playcalling.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I'm just going to add this in to fuel the fire. No other reason .

You've just convinced me that tackling in American Football doesn't take much skill.

Look at some of the rugby tackles, they're alot more than 'see ball, see man carrying ball, run at him'. For a start, there are some rules that dictate how you tackle and you don't feel like you're sitting inside a tank.

And to bring it onto topic, sliding tackles in soccer take a alot of skill. Especially when used in or near the penalty box. And tackling incorrectly will lead to either the opposition keeping the ball, or conceding a free kick/penalty.

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.

This made me chuckle.

Some points were raised about how American Football is a more primitive game. Lots of big hits, lots of anger, lots of violence. But best of all it seems, lots of time to stand around without the danger of attack and discuss what to do next.

And that's where football leadership is better than American football leadership. While the Captain on the pitch actually has little control of the formation, he is still pivotal in the control and morale of his team mates all while trying to do the job of a standard player (Unless you're a captain and a goal keeper, which just requires a good set of lungs ).

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

But I play rugby aswell.

Here's my slightly under inflated (but pretty much full size) Rugby ball compared to my American football.


The balls aren't that dissimilar in size, and shape, the American football is more pointed which does make it difficult but not that bad.

Yes, but he had to:

* kick it high enough so it wouldn't be blocked by the defenders
* kick it low enough to achieve the desired distance
* kick it through the goal post
* catch, drop, and kick the ball in less the time it takes for the defense to get to him

Even with a holder, many good kickers miss field goals due to the defense and game pressure. Drop-kicking a ball through the uprights makes it even harder.

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.

Yes because in every other sport that requires kicking the ball in open play, everyone else stands around and applauds them.

And please don't tell me the ideal surface has only happened once in several decades Surely a one point drop kick would be better than a loss, or hell even a draw when the clock is running low?

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.

Yes, but why can't the drop kick come from the restart? You'll have one more player blocking as no one will need to hold the ball up.

 

[Dave A]

It's closer to random. When scoring almost never occurs, one lucky play can win the game. When scoring occurs too often, one unlucky play can lose the game. When scoring occurs just right, luck rarely wins the game for you.

And imo football has it spot on. If every game finished 1-0 you'd have a point, but most games don't.

The stopping makes American football much more strategic than soccer, which makes it a more intellectual game (yes I did just say that).

How does being given the chance to stop the game to change tactics make it more strategic or intellectual than a game where you have to think fast and change tactics on the move without stopping? I'd love some examples of where strategy in American football shows itself to be higher than that in football.

 

[FoolKiller]

You've just convinced me that tackling in American Football doesn't take much skill.

People say that until they try it against a trained player. An improper tackle will not bring down a good ball carrier. I've seen as many as five or more guys hitting a carrier before he goes down. The ball carrier has a number of avoidance and deflective maneuvers that he can make. If your tackle isn't solid and doesn't predict something like a juke or spin you will wind up face first in the dirt.

Also, I would say a number of those hits are not legal. I know I saw at least three facemasks (grabbing the face mask and dragging the player to the ground). With the regulations there are many other things to consider in tackling, including where your hands are, the timing of the hit, and what position the man plays. Quarterbacks can only be hit in a certain zone, kickers cannot be hit the moment the ball leaves their body (or is it at all?), and receivers have to be allowed to run so far past the line of scrimmage before you can touch him.

Even the guys whose sole job is to hit hard have to think first.

Some points were raised about how American Football is a more primitive game. Lots of big hits, lots of anger, lots of violence. But best of all it seems, lots of time to stand around without the danger of attack and discuss what to do next.

Which means your opponents have time to discuss how to attack you fresh. Either side misjudges the other and you will either have a quarterback eating turf or a man practically walking in for a touchdown.

And don't even get me into the 20 some odd things the quarterback has to consider in less than four seconds (unless you're Tom Brady, then you get all day) before he passes the ball.

And please don't tell me the ideal surface has only happened once in several decades Surely a one point drop kick would be better than a loss, or hell even a draw when the clock is running low?

Once again, it was an extra point kick, and can only be performed after a touchdown has been made. Any other situation and you will find no room to get it off without being blocked and you are most likely too far from the goal to make it anyway.

Yes, but why can't the drop kick come from the restart? You'll have one more player blocking as no one will need to hold the ball up.

You just described a punt. You use a holder for a field goal because the held, standing position allows for more control and distance. However, I have seen where a punt was hard enough to go through the goal posts, and it counted as a field goal.

 

[Danoff]

This made me chuckle.

Some points were raised about how American Football is a more primitive game. Lots of big hits, lots of anger, lots of violence. But best of all it seems, lots of time to stand around without the danger of attack and discuss what to do next.

It's war. There are many roles, you have the men in the trenches (running back, linebackers), you've got the ariel attack (wide recievers, QB), and you've got the generals (coach, QB). The generals take in the war, analyze the deficiencies of their formations and make adjustments. In American football, the coach (or playcaller) is an important player in the game. He and the QB are the brains of the operation, trying to find weaknesses in the defense by formulating new methods of attack, planning, and implementing.

The complexity of formations is limited when the adjustment must take place on the field. There is no arguing with that statement, it's fact. Communication is more limited in soccer, so adjustments made during play are limited.

And that's where football leadership is better than American football leadership. While the Captain on the pitch actually has little control of the formation, he is still pivotal in the control and morale of his team mates all while trying to do the job of a standard player (Unless you're a captain and a goal keeper, which just requires a good set of lungs ).

Uh... how is that superior leadership? The QB does all of the things you mention PLUS he actually has control of the formations and can make play adjustments. PLUS you have coaching leadership. It's quite clear, soccer has less of a leadership role.

And imo football has it spot on. If every game finished 1-0 you'd have a point, but most games don't.

If every game finished 1-0 nobody would watch. Soccer has the minimum amount of scoring per game that will get people to watch. Basketball has about the maximum. Somewhere in the middle is the right answer. More than soccer (the minimum), less than basketball (the maximum). That way, the game is still exciting, not random, and still shows progress.

How does being given the chance to stop the game to change tactics make it more strategic or intellectual than a game where you have to think fast and change tactics on the move without stopping? I'd love some examples of where strategy in American football shows itself to be higher than that in football.

The complexity and number of plays in American football is greater than soccer. Stopping and analyzing allows the players to get a greater understanding of what is happening both from the point of view on the field and off. In soccer, the options are limited, and the communication is limited - that makes it less intellectual.

 

[Danoff]

Sure they're all engaged in every play. But they also are only active for very brief moments, and then they get a minute or two rest.

If a professional athlete can't handle that then they should be putting in more training.

American football isn't about endurance as much as it is about skill. Think of it more like weightlifting than marathon running. We want to see impressive feats on every play, which means lots of specialization. I couldn't care less about endurance on the football field.

I'm amazed how you can be so scathing of soccer players when some American Footballers just stand and use predominantly their weight to simply block the opposition and may never hold the ball in open play in their entire career.

Linemen are like sumo wrestlers. They have to use their weight advantageously while using their hands to get a good hold. It's increadibly similar to a sumo match (without the giant thong). All the while you have the raw speed of a sprinter going down the field with a wide reciever ready to leap through the air and make a dexterous catch with one hand tied behind his back. At the same time, you've got the bulldozer running back who's ready to plow through would-be tacklers, make them miss, or just drive them into the ground, meanwhile the QB is trying to figure out which strategy will work best while the sumo wrestlers and defensive sprinters are flying through the air ready to clobber him.

It's pretty exciting stuff.

 

[Specialized]

If every game finished 1-0 nobody would watch. Soccer has the minimum amount of scoring per game that will get people to watch. Basketball has about the maximum. Somewhere in the middle is the right answer. More than soccer (the minimum), less than basketball (the maximum). That way, the game is still exciting, not random, and still shows progress.

Im going to have to disagee there. Sports like football, Ameican football and rugby arnt just exciting because of the number of goals. The excitement of a game is not usually judged buy the amount of goals especially in football. Hell i went and saw my town play in against another town and the final score was 8-0 and it was one of the dullest games i have ever witnessed. Im sure american football is the same. In a game of football, english or american, if the teams are competitive then 90% of the time it makes for good veiwing. Should a game of american footbal be played and just one touchdown was scored but both teams were fighting like hell and running up and down the pitch blocking the opponents attacks and counter attacking then surely that would be exciting?

Sure a well scored goal, try or touchdown is a great spectacle and never fails to get the fans screaming but its always the build up to the goal which is the most exciting even if the attempt at goal, try or touchdown is stopped. In my opinion a game with more action will nearly always be better to watch than a game with lots of goals. Anticipation can be a great thing.

Spec....

 

[Danoff]

I disagree that the number of goals does not change the excitement of the game. I think soccer goals are far more exciting than football scores, because they're so much rarer. Basketball scores are probably the most boring of all. My point about the scoring is that you want few enough of them so that each one is exciting, but you want them to occur frequently enough that progress is clear.

Honestly if American football had a 500 yard field, I might enjoy it the same amount. Sure, scoring would happen less often, but the progress would be visible. Of course you always need the chance of something rare coming up to undo the progress.

One comment about rugby...

Rugby is a bit more like boxing than American football. We don't watch football to see guys get hurt or bleed. We watch football to see amazing hits, feats of strength, dexterity, precision, and strategy. I like the big hits, hits that wouldn't be possible without the padding, but at the same time I'm glad the guys don't get seriously injured often.

 

[Dave A]

The complexity and number of plays in American football is greater than soccer.

Do you have numbers to back that up? Because as far as I'm aware there's an almost limitless number of formations and position combinations you can play your players in football.

In soccer, the options are limited, and the communication is limited - that makes it less intellectual.

How is it limited, the players on the pitch are nearly always communicating, and the manager regularly gives out instructions as well, how is stopping the game to say "let's try this" more communicative than telling your team mates on the fly, as for set peices, most of thoes are practiced to death in training so they already know where to be given a set piece in certain areas of the pitch before the match. Personally I just think you don't understand football well enough, I probably don't understand American football well enough either, but American football just bores me, Rugby doesn't.

Some of the most entertaining games of football I've watched have been 1-0,1-1 or 2-1 scores. I've seen plenty of 3-0 thrashings, which are exiting as well, if the play is there. I've seen high scoring games that have been dull, I've seen high scoring games that have been great. I don't equate the number of goals to an exciting game or not. But I do think that if the number of goals per match on average was doubled in football, each goal would become less special. It wouldn't mean as much to the fans. And speaking of progress, how can you not see teams making progress in football as much, I can see it in every game when teams make progress in exploiting weaknesses in the other teams formation and tactics. There are many ways you can exploit another teams formation in football and there are many ways you can make progress, it's not all moving up the pitch, though the aim for the end result is always to get that goal, you can make progress towards that by playing the ball backwards.

 

[ExigeEvan]

One comment about rugby...

Rugby is a bit more like boxing than American football. We don't watch football to see guys get hurt or bleed. We watch football to see amazing hits, feats of strength, dexterity, precision, and strategy. I like the big hits, hits that wouldn't be possible without the padding, but at the same time I'm glad the guys don't get seriously injured often.

Okay, I have to confront this now.

What is it with American's perception that rugby players spent half their lives on a stretcher?

Rugby players are no more injury prone than football players. And if anything, I see more broken legs and such in football. Sure, there are about 1, maybe 2 blood subs (temporary changes while a player has stitches/dressing) but these are merely superficial and no player I know has ever been kept out of the next game but a cut.

Yes rugby is a physical game, yes there are lots of superficial injuries (In fact, my brother wouldn't play rugby for a while as he'd grown up seeing the stud marks on my legs.), but as you go up through the ranks and ages you get used to it and the only time you notice most injuries are when you're in the shower scrubbing the dirt off.

American football isn't about endurance as much as it is about skill. Think of it more like weightlifting than marathon running. We want to see impressive feats on every play, which means lots of specialization. I couldn't care less about endurance on the football field.

But physical endurance is a huge part of fitness. You just have to look at the strong man competitions to see that often the ones that do best are the fittest ones and not always the biggest.

Linemen are like sumo wrestlers. They have to use their weight advantageously while using their hands to get a good hold. It's increadibly similar to a sumo match (without the giant thong). All the while you have the raw speed of a sprinter going down the field with a wide reciever ready to leap through the air and make a dexterous catch with one hand tied behind his back. At the same time, you've got the bulldozer running back who's ready to plow through would-be tacklers, make them miss, or just drive them into the ground, meanwhile the QB is trying to figure out which strategy will work best while the sumo wrestlers and defensive sprinters are flying through the air ready to clobber him.

It's pretty exciting stuff.

It is, but I'll say it again, why does it take so long for it to be repeated? Honestly I could watch hours of men battering each other and big hits, but I can't stand hours of stops in play.

It's war. There are many roles, you have the men in the trenches (running back, linebackers), you've got the ariel attack (wide recievers, QB), and you've got the generals (coach, QB). The generals take in the war, analyze the deficiencies of their formations and make adjustments. In American football, the coach (or playcaller) is an important player in the game. He and the QB are the brains of the operation, trying to find weaknesses in the defense by formulating new methods of attack, planning, and implementing.

My point was, a general doesn't get to pull his soldiers away from the front lines every 30 seconds so he can give them new commands.

The complexity of formations is limited when the adjustment must take place on the field. There is no arguing with that statement, it's fact. Communication is more limited in soccer, so adjustments made during play are limited.

That's true, you cannot all stand around and pat each other on the arse mid game and say 'good job, great job, excellent job' to all your team mates.

Uh... how is that superior leadership? The QB does all of the things you mention PLUS he actually has control of the formations and can make play adjustments. PLUS you have coaching leadership. It's quite clear, soccer has less of a leadership role.

But the Quarter back's decisions are made without physical pressure. Sure he knows mentally that he can't screw up, and he knows that soon there will be an attack, and he knows that soon he might get tackled.

But he's not being tackled, he's not under attack, he's not being scored against and he's not under physical pressure as he is making decsions.

As you like military analogies, it's like a company being ambushed, and the CO is more concerned about where his gun aimed than where everyone elses aimed.

Sure, that's not the complete fault of the QB as he can't possibly give real time orders in 20 second bursts of play but it is a trait of the game. A trait that nonetheless takes away from the leadership.

 

[Sureboss]

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.

Or you can get 9 goal thrillers like tonight when Liverpool went into self destruct mode.

 

[Dave A]

I know, I had it on the radio, Liverpool got trounced. Arsenal were all over them in the last game as well.

 

[Danoff]

Do you have numbers to back that up? Because as far as I'm aware there's an almost limitless number of formations and position combinations you can play your players in football.

How many different formations are present in the average soccer game? In both soccer and American football, the options are limitless. I'm talking about actual implemented adjustments.

How is it limited, the players on the pitch are nearly always communicating, and the manager regularly gives out instructions as well, how is stopping the game to say "let's try this" more communicative than telling your team mates on the fly

Are they on the sidelines looking at pictures of the previous plays analyzing the defensive positions? Do they have guys in the sky box calling down instructions via wireless radio?

But physical endurance is a huge part of fitness. You just have to look at the strong man competitions to see that often the ones that do best are the fittest ones and not always the biggest.

Not for a sprinter (which many football players are). There is an endurance element for the linemen, but it isn't running, it's wrestling. There are lots of different types of athletic ability.

My point was, a general doesn't get to pull his soldiers away from the front lines every 30 seconds so he can give them new commands.

Generals aren't typically on the front lines.

That's true, you cannot all stand around and pat each other on the arse mid game and say 'good job, great job, excellent job' to all your team mates.

This isn't helping the conversation.

But the Quarter back's decisions are made without physical pressure. Sure he knows mentally that he can't screw up, and he knows that soon there will be an attack, and he knows that soon he might get tackled.

But he's not being tackled, he's not under attack, he's not being scored against and he's not under physical pressure as he is making decsions.

Have you ever actually watched an American football game?

 

[Dave A]

How many different formations are present in the average soccer game? In both soccer and American football, the options are limitless. I'm talking about actual implemented adjustments.

This will vary from game to game, but formation in football is far more fluid than it is in American football where they play one move, stop, adopt a different formation or play and try that, stop ect. In football you'll get your wingers switching, your defensive midfielder making forwards runs ect. Evry member of the team will change formation at some point several times in the average game, they might not leave their starting role, ie the the left back will probably spend the whole game as left back but where he is on the pitch and how he uses his role will change depending on the situation. That's the biggest difference bettween the movment on the pitch between football and American football, football is a hell of a lot more fluid which is a hell of a lot better imo. There's no real way to count the times the teams tactics, formation, through play ect changes in a game. It's a hell of a lot put it that way, especially when it's against a team that's playing behind the ball because they're usually the hardest to break through.

Are they on the sidelines looking at pictures of the previous plays analyzing the defensive positions? Do they have guys in the sky box calling down instructions via wireless radio?

No but that's one of the reasons American football loses out to Rugby imo. The players on the pitch are playing, active players shouldn't be allowed to use anything they can't take on the pitch with them. Okay so thanks to the stoppages and the pictures there's more to the communication in American football but theres still a high level of communication in football, the communication is very open, and very active.

 

[Danoff]

- You admit that communication between players and with coordinators is more effective in American football.
- You admit that the analysis of play is more thorough in American football (what with half a dozen guys dedicated fully, off the field, with a better view of the field than players have, to that sole purpose).
- You admit that there is a more active role in precisely adjusting the team during game play.
- You admit that the clock and half-dozen different ways to score provides with a more complex scenario of options than just "kick the ball into the net".

Yet you don't agree that American football is a more strategy oriented cereberal game?

 

[Dave A]

- You admit that communication between players and with coordinators is more effective in American football.

No, not more effective. There use more means of communication in American football, like the radio and pictures, but that doesn't mean the communication in American football is any more effective than in football.

- You admit that the analysis of play is more thorough in American football (what with half a dozen guys dedicated fully, off the field, with a better view of the field than players have, to that sole purpose).

Yes I'll admit that, but that is one of the reasons I don't like American football as much as Rugby, there's too many things going on that are interferring with play. It's not the analysis that's going on specifically, it's the way it all interferres with the play.

- You admit that there is a more active role in precisely adjusting the team during game play.

Nope. Just because the game stops for American footballers that doesn't mean that the on the fly changes made in football is any less notable, important or precise than the changes made in American football.

- You admit that the clock and half-dozen different ways to score provides with a more complex scenario of options than just "kick the ball into the net".

Yes but I've never suggested otherwise. But theres still a hell of a lot involved in actually getting to the "kick the ball in the toher net" in football. Complicated doesn't equal more stategic, it just equals complicated. Having one way to score in many ways can make it more strategic, because that's the only way the opposition have to defend against so it makes it tighter to break through. I'm not specifying here, I'm jsut saying how that doesn't equal a more strategy based game.

Yet you don't agree that American football is a more strategy oriented cereberal game?

There's probably very, very similar levels of strategy that go into both sports, the difference is that one game doesn't stop to let you ponder over things, you have to think fast. The other you move, stop, move, stop, move, stop. In football you get to discuss strategy before the game, then in the first half it's on the fly, then at half time you have 15 mins to discuss it again, then it's on the fly again for the second half. Just because most of it is on the fly as opposed to the game being stopped to discuss it, that doesn't make it any less strategic.

 

[Danoff]

There's probably very, very similar levels of strategy that go into both sports, the difference is that one game doesn't stop to let you ponder over things, you have to think fast. The other you move, stop, move, stop, move, stop. In football you get to discuss strategy before the game, then in the first half it's on the fly, then at half time you have 15 mins to discuss it again, then it's on the fly again for the second half. Just because most of it is on the fly as opposed to the game being stopped to discuss it, that doesn't make it any less strategic.

So then American football players are just stupid and lazy, as are their coaches. Because clearly soccer players are doing just as much strategizing and adjustment, they're just also playing constantly while doing all that right?

That's what I'm hearing here.

No, not more effective. There use more means of communication in American football, like the radio and pictures, but that doesn't mean the communication in American football is any more effective than in football.

It's not more effective to tell your QB exactly what you want right in his ear during the game than it is to yell a signal across a field? It's not more effective to huddle up and make sure everyone is on the same page? It's not more effective communication when the QB coach pulls the QB off to the side and tells him that his rotation is off and that he's not stepping into his throws?

Seriously, it's silly to suggest that the communication allowed by stopping action and regrouping isn't superior to what's allowed while play is going on. I'm surprised this is a sticking point.

Nope. Just because the game stops for American footballers that doesn't mean that the on the fly changes made in football is any less notable, important or precise than the changes made in American football.

Here's what I said:

- You admit that there is a more active role in precisely adjusting the team during game play.

You simply can't have as much adjustment and the adjustments can't be as precise when you're trying to make them on the fly. When you can sit down and draw up new plays and look at pictures of the defense, that's a more precise, active role in making adjustments. Again, I'm surprised that you're debating this.

American football is a more strategic, more cereberal game. Just admit it and let's move on. It's just way more complex. Soccer is conceptually quite simple. Sure there are formations, but it's just nowhere near as strategic as American football... not even close.

I feel like I could be having the same argument with a tennis player or a golfer. "No way, golf is just as strategic as football. You can put the ball in different places for different courses, you can hit the ball with different clubs, you can put a fade on the ball, you can give it spin, you have to account for the slope of the green..." Comeon! It's silly.


Edit: And before somebody posts it, no golf is not more strategic than american football. It's more precision oriented, but it isn't more strategic. There's a lot of technique and analysis invovled in setting up the shot precisely, but that's not strategy.

 

[OZZYGT]

Let's not forget that, in American Football, a good play is recognized by seeing the QB make a perfect throw to an open receiver who happened to be open because the man who was supposed to guard him, was cut off by another player of the offense. But, isn't that how every single good play is made? I mean, it's the same thing over and over and over again.

Now, a lot of people actually like when the running back takes the ball all the way to the end zone evading 5-7 defenders on the run...be it on an interception or a simple offensive play, and THOSE plays, are shown on ESPN like "wow just look at that play". And that's when I think, "so that's what people really like, the adrenaline of seeing someone running across the field without nobody taking him down" but, don't we see this all the time in soccer?

 

[Danoff]

Let's not forget that, in American Football, a good play is recognized by seeing the QB make a perfect throw to an open receiver who happened to be open because the man who was supposed to guard him, was cut off by another player of the offense. But, isn't that how every single good play is made? I mean, it's the same thing over and over and over again.

No. Receivers are able to get separation in many ways. Sure they run picks, but they also just put on moves or speed on that's able to make the separation. Sometimes they don't get separation and the QB threads the ball in between 2 defenders to get to the receiver anyway. Plus, there's the element of keeping your feet in bounds and maintaining control of the ball which leads to some unbelievable acrobatic acts as recievers stretch and position themselves in unnatural ways, it's quite amazing really. Then you've got increadible openfield movies to make guys miss, or you've got increadible strength as guys get carried downfield, or you've got amazing tackles. There are lots of different things to appreciate. I wouldn't say every play is the same... not by a long shot.

 

[Evolution.]

but, don't we see this all the time in soccer?

Since when has Soccer's objective been to evade a tackle?

 

[OZZYGT]

No. Receivers are able to get separation in many ways. Sure they run picks, but they also just put on moves or speed on that's able to make the separation. Sometimes they don't get separation and the QB threads the ball in between 2 defenders to get to the receiver anyway. Plus, there's the element of keeping your feet in bounds and maintaining control of the ball which leads to some unbelievable acrobatic acts as recievers stretch and position themselves in unnatural ways, it's quite amazing really. Then you've got increadible openfield movies to make guys miss, or you've got increadible strength as guys get carried downfield, or you've got amazing tackles. There are lots of different things to appreciate. I wouldn't say every play is the same... not by a long shot.

You see, but now you're focusing more on the skills part, sure there are many moves on American football that can make your jaw drop, but I'm sorry to tell you that if you're looking for detailed skills, acrobatics, astonishing quick moves, specially with feet on the ground...watch football; American football is known for more of a muscle game, more bull to bull strength. Only the slim ones, I'd say, are the most "acrobatic" from the rest of the team...which often happen to be the receivers.

Now, on the strategic part, I agree with you. American Football, because of its normal complexity, has to be more of a strategic game. However, that does not make it better than football imo because just the fact that you stop every 5-10 secs to review or plan another play, makes the game less admirable; sure it's organized and all, but honestly, the only part that I really like on an American football game is when things don't go as planned and the QB has to throw at another receiver as a quick exit. If the receiver get's the first down or even the touchdown, it makes the play even better, why? because that's when you can tell if your team has good players...players that can think on their own and win the game without the babysitter telling them what to do every breath they take.

In football, players are awarded for their ability to think on their own and to physically outperform the other players. You can tell me how the formations in American Football are 10X more strategic than the football ones, but what good is it if you don't have the players that deliver like T.O. (yes, he's a wimp, but he's good), Randy Moss, both Barber brothers and many others? and it's because their ability to stretch, catch the ball, run, fool the other players, etc etc...and in football, you can find plenty of that. That's why we're not so eager to see a strategic play on a football match, we're dying to see those amazing plays that make football the most popular game in the world.

Since when has Soccer's objective been to evade a tackle?

Ohh great, so now I have this kid telling me what football is about...

*Sigh*, did you have your milk yet MachOne? seriously, what are you thinking in? when are you gonna start learning the point of writing and reading? I sincerely don't know what if I wanna laugh, get mad, feel sorry or just wonder, why? Furthermore, you said this was a stupid topic right? so why are you even in here?

Aaaanyway, although my point was clearly not about tackles being football's main objective...here's a video for you to watch and learn..OK?


BTW, I know that American Football has horrible tackles too, as it is probably what is based on basically, but this is only to show, that in football, there is also very painful tackling you have to deal with if you have the ball with you.
Thrown only to my special friend MO up there.

 

[Evolution.]

Ohh great, so now I have this kid telling me what football is about...

*Sigh*, did you have your milk yet MachOne? seriously, what are you thinking in? when are you gonna start learning the point of writing and reading? I sincerely don't know what if I wanna laugh, get mad, feel sorry or just wonder, why? Furthermore, you said this was a stupid topic right? so why are you even in here?

Aaaanyway, although my point was clearly not about tackles being football's main objective...here's a video for you to watch and learn..OK?

Congratulations! You have succeeded in looking like a complete ass by dragging out the "lol ur 13 wtf omg lol" countermeasure. You know, that is really old and a bit too played out now.

You said:

"so that's what people really like, the adrenaline of seeing someone running across the field without nobody taking him down" but, don't we see this all the time in soccer?

So, put this into your train of though:

In American football, the point of running the ball is to evade all 11 defenders successfully and get the ball to the end zone. This is a rare occurance when it comes to breaking large runs (i.e: 10+ yards). In soccer, the running up the field bit is not nearly as spectacular. Why? Because they are just dribbling the ball upfield. Really, there isn't much to it. I want you to tell me which is easier: Dribbling a soccer ball down a field, or successfully getting away from 11 brick walls (moving at incredible speeds), and then running 30+ yards to an end zone.

Now, do you see why breaking a huge run in American football is so much more interesting than in soccer? 90% of soccer (pulling statistics out of my ass here) is running. I've played both sports (Soccer for 2 years, and Football for 2) on organized teams, so I know a bit about both (admittedly more about football than soccer). I know that playing attacker or midfielder in soccer requires more running than anything, and I'm also aware of many of the techniques used in-game. You just assume that I am young, stupid, and know absolutely nothing about soccer because I contested your comment. Wrong.

 

[OZZYGT]

.

 

[OZZYGT]

Congratulations! You have succeeded in looking like a complete ass by dragging out the "lol ur 13 wtf omg lol" countermeasure. You know, that is really old and a bit too played out now.

This is not a game son, it's too sad that you see everything as it though.

And btw, you know what you just gained by saying that nonsense do you

I've played both sports (Soccer for 2 years,) on organized teams

In the US? How come?
But if that was true...if that was true my friend, you wouldn't be saying this vvvv

Really, there isn't much to it.

But as I've seen some of your pics, I can tell that you're not the skinniest kid out there, so it's ok, I believe you, there's isn't much to being seated in the bench.

I want you to tell me which is easier: Dribbling a soccer ball down a field, or successfully getting away from 11 brick walls (moving at incredible speeds), and then running 30+ yards to an end zone.

If you tell me that dribbling the ball down the field is what football is really about, then naive is too small of a word to describe you.
And eleven brick walls?!! moving at incredible speed??!! who's being the biased here little one?
Before asking me that question, you should completely understand both sports and being able to tell accurately what is wrong with each one of them. Because as you put it, it is impossible for anyother sport to beat American Football, but if you wanna make sense in this forum for once, come back at me with a meaningful smart post....for God's Sake.

Now, do you see why breaking a huge run in American football is so much more interesting than in soccer?

Oh boy, this is getting better by the minute...
If you're a fan of American football, if you basically suck at soccer, if you don't understand what soccer is about, tell me, how in the world, are you going to think of a run in soccer is more interesting than a run in American Football? MO, you fail badly.

Ohh no! there's more! vvvv

90% of soccer (pulling statistics out of my ass here) is running.

That does it. In what school did you....erm...play? Because so far from what you have said, you know NOTHING about football my friend, the only thing you're doing here is to make yourself smaller and smaller. Please, just stop.

so I know a bit about both

Er, no. About American football, yes. About Football, not even a bit.

You just assume that I am young, stupid, and know absolutely nothing about soccer because I contested your comment. Wrong.

Not really, I think you have potential of being respected, but you just don't want to, you just post for the hell of it, and that's the problem. Posts like the above and many other from you, are the ones that have made you the clown of the forum. I've had many arguments with many other members, but only you really stand out....even when I don't expect it.
Basically anyone including myself of course can be as naive as you, even a 41 year old guy can be a hard headed one. But you can instantly change that by actually reading and learning....
Now, before we continue with this fight rather than on-topic argument, I'll ask you once again, to PM me. I was originally waiting for Danoff's reply but he got disconnected, because I liked where we were going with the conversation...too bad you had to step in...

 

[Evolution.]

But as I've seen some of your pics, I can tell that you're not the skinniest kid out there, so it's ok, I believe you, there's isn't much to being seated in the bench.

. Hilarious. Considering I've lost quite a bit of weight since any pictures I've posted here, and the fact that you know nothing about me or my abilities, you just made yourself look like a presumption c#&#.

If you tell me that dribbling the ball down the field is what football is really about, then naive is too small of a word to describe you.
And eleven brick walls?!! moving at incredible speed??!! who's being the biased here little one?

How else do you want me to describe them, a bunch of fairies moving with delicate strides? You must be retarded if you think I'm not going to describe a wall of linemen and linebackers like they really are. Have you ever even played American football? Do you have any experience whatsoever in the sport you are so dedicatedly attacking?

Before asking me that question, you should completely understand both sports and being able to tell accurately what is wrong with each one of them. Because as you put it, it is impossible for anyother sport to beat American Football, but if you wanna make sense in this forum for once, come back at me with a meaningful smart post....for God's Sake.

Take your own advice. You have no idea what it is like to play a full game of American football, obviously. Or at least, with people your own size (i.e: those not 10 years younger than you).

Oh boy, this is getting better by the minute...
If you're a fan of American football, if you basically suck at soccer, if you don't understand what soccer is about, tell me, how in the world, are you going to think of a run in soccer is more interesting than a run in American Football? MO, you fail badly.

Way to back your statements up with logic and good structure. I won't even try to respond to this one (yes, your awesome mad skills win).

Ohh no! there's more! vvvv

That does it. In what school did you....erm...play? Because so far from what you have said, you know NOTHING about football my friend, the only thing you're doing here is to make yourself smaller and smaller. Please, just stop.

See above . You think you are the all-dominating force here. You obviously do know more about soccer. I admitted this. Is it that big of a deal to you that you are more knowledgeable in a sport you personally like than I am? If it is, you should consider exploring a different hobby other than getting off to being omniscient to others.

Not really, I think you have potential of being respected, but you just don't want to, you just post for the hell of it, and that's the problem. Posts like the above and many other from you, are the ones that have made you being the clown of the forum. I've had many arguments with many other members, but only you really stand out....even when I don't expect it.
Basically anyone including myself of course can be naive as you, even a 41 year old guy can be a hard headed one. But you can instantly change that by actually reading and learning....
Now, before we continue with this fight rather than on-topic argument, I'll ask you once again, to PM me. I was originally waiting for Danoff's reply but he got disconnected, because I liked where we were going with the conversation...too bad you had to step in...

And this is where you look even more idiotic. I didn't know I was being an idiot or a clown by creating an argument that was completely on topic directed towards you. Are you mad that I have showed you up some how? It sure seems like you are lacking alot of structure in your comebacks. You OK there Ozzy?

And the whole "PM me if you want to continue" thing is old. You just want the last word publically. Face it, everyone always wants the last word, so don't try to hide it. Our argument* is completely on topic, so it can and should continue publically in this thread.

* = discussion, if you will

 

[OZZYGT]

*peanuts again*

PM sent

 

[Loon]

originally posted by Ozzy.
Now, a lot of people actually like when the running back takes the ball all the way to the end zone evading 5-7 defenders on the run...be it on an interception or a simple offensive play, and THOSE plays, are shown on ESPN like "wow just look at that play". And that's when I think, "so that's what people really like, the adrenaline of seeing someone running across the field without nobody taking him down" but, don't we see this all the time in soccer?

Yeah, that is what alot of people like about american football, making big play, wether it be the running back rushing for 10-15+ yards or the recievers turning a small catch into huge yardage down the field, but its different in soccer, admittedly I don't know as much about soccer as I do about football but as far as I know soccer players main intention isn't to tackle the player as much as it is to try and steal the ball.

 

[Kylehnat]

But the Quarter back's decisions are made without physical pressure. Sure he knows mentally that he can't screw up, and he knows that soon there will be an attack, and he knows that soon he might get tackled.

But he's not being tackled, he's not under attack, he's not being scored against and he's not under physical pressure as he is making decsions.

Have you ever actually watched an American football game?

Flag football with a 7-alligator count.

Seriously, EE, you might want to talk to Troy Smith about that comment.

 

[Specialized]

Throughout this post i will refer to English Footbal as - EF and American Football as AF

So then American football players are just stupid and lazy, as are their coaches. Because clearly soccer players are doing just as much strategizing and adjustment, they're just also playing constantly while doing all that right?

That's what I'm hearing here.

When you can sit down and draw up new plays and look at pictures of the defense

The fact that you have to draw the players little pictures and diagrams kinda answers that question itself

On a more serious note though,

Thats not what L4S is saying. I think he was simply saying that during a EF game players are made to think on there feet and respond to the opponents attacks instantly which may well then change suddenly into their team attacking, where the said player will then have to re-evaluate what he has just done and get themselves into a suitable position so that he can either help the attack or support them giving the attacking player as many options as he can.

In AF the period of play is much more condensed and the team have to make sure that the strategy is executed to perfection, so they play one play at a time. in AF yards are very precious things but in EF the ball can travel from one end of the pitch to the other and back again in a matter of seconds so it is not so much more important but focused effort for the AF team to make each play count.

In short what im trying to say is that both teams have to analyze the game in there own ways due to the different way the games are played. An AF player has 15/20 seconds to think and act on the way the play goes but he has already been briefed as to how the opposition might play. In EF the player might have a longer time to analyze maybe up to a few minutes at a time but will be actively thinking on his feet as to how to improve the current play. Neither team/players is stupid (David Beckham is exempt from that statement) they just apply themselves to suit the needs of each game

Spec....

 

[Dave A]

So then American football players are just stupid and lazy, as are their coaches. Because clearly soccer players are doing just as much strategizing and adjustment, they're just also playing constantly while doing all that right?

No, I think I've made it quite clear that I just see tham as two different approaches. One is on the fly, the other is not. The stop, start approach doesn't appeal to me and I've made that clear but I've never said it makes American football players lazy or stupid.

It's not more effective to tell your QB exactly what you want right in his ear during the game than it is to yell a signal across a field? It's not more effective to huddle up and make sure everyone is on the same page? It's not more effective communication when the QB coach pulls the QB off to the side and tells him that his rotation is off and that he's not stepping into his throws?

No not nessicerily, at the end of the day, if the message you communicate gets to the other player and is understood then that's been effectively passed on regardless of it being given during open or stopped play. Like I said, there are more ways to communicate in American football, but more ways does equal more effective.

You simply can't have as much adjustment and the adjustments can't be as precise when you're trying to make them on the fly. When you can sit down and draw up new plays and look at pictures of the defense, that's a more precise, active role in making adjustments. Again, I'm surprised that you're debating this.

Again, the fact that something is done on the fly doesn't make it any less precise, if you tell a guy to run down that wing and cut in while another guy overlaps, if that's what the players do then that's as effective as you can be in communicating that message regardless of it being in stopped play or on the fly.

American football is a more strategic, more cereberal game. Just admit it and let's move on. It's just way more complex. Soccer is conceptually quite simple. Sure there are formations, but it's just nowhere near as strategic as American football... not even close.

I'm yet to hear of, or see any specific examples where an American football team will move down the pitch and score and it being more technical than anything I've seen in football.

Since when has Soccer's objective been to evade a tackle?

Making and evading tackles is a huge part of football, if you team can't tackle you will get slaughtered. In contrast if your team can't evade tackles, you will have almost no possesion.

But if that was true...if that was true my friend, you wouldn't be saying this vvvv

No he wouldn't, I've been playing football for 15 years, and ever in a competetive match have I played a game that's been simple. I've played games we've dominated and where we've been dominated and it's never been nearly that simple.

If you tell me that dribbling the ball down the field is what football is really about, then naive is too small of a word to describe you.

When I play football I play in defense, or down either of the wings. When I'm a winger I probably do more dribbling than any other player on the pitch in most games. But even in that position, that's not what it's about. The cutting in, the one-twos, overlapping and stretching the other teams defense are major parts of a wingers play.

If you're a fan of American football, if you basically suck at soccer, if you don't understand what soccer is about, tell me, how in the world, are you going to think of a run in soccer is more interesting than a run in American Football?

Which goes both ways and I agree with entirely. If you don't understand one as well as the other you arn't going to see the tecnial aspect of it. I see the changes in formation and the way players try to open up the other team in both football and American football, but at the end of the day, many of the actual techniques in movement to open up defenses ect are quite similar.

as far as I know soccer players main intention isn't to tackle the player as much as it is to try and steal the ball.

Stealing the ball requires tackling, unless someone puts a bad pass or cross in and you can intercept it, your goal when you don't have possesion is to tackle, though this can change depending on the specific situation. Some situation may call for you to simply shepherd the player with the ball into a position of the pitch where he simply cannot do anything, but the end result is with him losing the ball. As a defensive player I've spent a lot of time tackling, keeping players on thier wrong foot and not allowing the player to see any passing or shooting opportunities. I've ran at an oncoming player and speed and fully committed myself to the tackle and I've taken the ball without touching the player, that's not easy. I've taken players down far more often than not when making fully commited moves like that, but most of the time I'll get the ball first, which makes it a legitimate tackle unless it's from behind.