PDA

View Full Version : Soccer vs NorthAmerican Football.


Rollingthunder
21st Aug 2008, 22:50
One is resembles combat more than sport, the other is finesse (other than most of the fans) One has players go in in armour, one has players go in in shorts. One takes breaks every 10 seconds, the other runs more or less constantly for an hour and a half. Both pay extraordinary and foolish amounts for players.

con-pilot
21st Aug 2008, 22:57
Both pay extraordinary and foolish amounts for players.

Too true, but then don't most sports anymore. :uhoh:

Strelnikov
21st Aug 2008, 23:08
One is a world sport, the other, isn't.

(Though I quite like gridiron)

Howard Hughes
21st Aug 2008, 23:09
the other is finesse
It would appear the only finesse in the round ball game these days is the skill of taking a dive! Football (soccer) needs to move with the times and introduce at the very least a second referee, or maybe even a video referee! Like all sports it has become so fast that one person cannot keep up with the play which spoils the game!

If they introduced a second referee, they might be able to catch the cheating bastards, especially the ones that wear blue!:ok:

Give me Gridiron any day, to the uninitiated it may look like shambles, but it is more like a live chess game! Even the offensive linemen need to be intelligent to remember all the possible plays and blocking patterns, unlike their Rugby front row counterparts...;)

CityofFlight
21st Aug 2008, 23:13
HH...couldn't agree more.

I've come to believe that the time outs and half times allow the viewer to quench their thirst (beer) and keep those tailgate parties hopping. We do those exceptionally well here, you know. :ok::p

Strelnikov
21st Aug 2008, 23:17
Ah...now Mr Hughes...I second most of your observations but you are unwise to have poke at RU front rowers.

The RU front row is a dark art unknown to all except those who have partaken.

I did play front row but in RL it is a different pastime.

The other big difference between gridiron and "soccer" (as overseas folk insist on calling it) and rugby is that gridiron is an impact sport that happens in violent 10 second spurts with plenty of resting time. This is why the huge, enormous 20+ stone specimens can play gridiron - they don't need any cardio ability (but they are great to watch - my personal favourite was Jerome Bettis).

Howard Hughes
21st Aug 2008, 23:38
they don't need any cardio ability
You would be surprised at how much cardio ability the 20 stone hulks have! Just putting on 20-30lbs of gear and running around instantly increases your cardiac output!

Many US football players are also capable sprinters, past or present!:ok:

con-pilot
21st Aug 2008, 23:41
Okay, on a serious note, okay semi-serious. ;)

I played both at the high school level. After a gridiron game you are exhausted and hurt all over, I played as a down lineman mostly on offense, occasionally defense. When is around 0-5 degrees C and you get keep getting hit by big guys it hurts, it also hurt when I hit big guys when it was cold. It hurts when you get hit when it is warm, but it seemed a lot worse when it was cold. I played for three years, first year we won only three games, second year we won two games, the last year we had a perfect season.

We lost every game. :\

In soccer I would be tired but felt a lot better than after a gridiron game. However, I played goalie because of my size, so that could be a reason I was not so tired. I was rather large for my age then, just over 6 feet tall and weighed 260 pounds. By just standing in the goal it seemed that I blocked a third of the goal. I only played soccer for two years and we won most of our games.

So from my point of view American style football is much harder on the body. Injury wise there were a lot of broken bones, knee injuries, concussions, etc playing gridiron Football as compared to soccer.

Oh, by the way, I only weigh 210 pounds now, much better.

Strelnikov
21st Aug 2008, 23:44
HH - I know what you mean - but ask them to run for 80 minutes (as RU forwards do) and they'll struggle.

Gridiron is a different sport - and I like it heaps.

The practitioners do possess some nobility as well which differs them from footballers (or soccer players).

There is is a lot of respect in rugby - as I suspect there is in gridiron.

Howard Hughes
21st Aug 2008, 23:59
I have played all football codes at a competitive level, except Rugby league. I found US football to be the most 'team oriented', where if you didn't play as a team you got beat! It would take me all week after a game before my aches and pains dissapeared, just in time for the next.:ooh:

Australian rules is by far the most demading from a fitness (cardio) point of view, a soccer field is a lot smaller so the bursts of speed are shorter although more often.

What can I say about Rugby? It is the game they play in heaven you know!:ok:

Two's in
22nd Aug 2008, 01:01
Slightly odd that a key reason soccer is not more mainstream here in the States is that no TV provider (cable or terrestrial) is prepared to air 45 minutes of sport without a commercial break. No commercial sponsorship, no coverage. Also confirms that the average sports fan has the attention span of a fruit fly with ADD.

Toolman101
22nd Aug 2008, 01:17
Watched the olympics USA v Brazil (womens) game last night, some hot looking chicks on the USA team.
If I had had more team mates like that, I would have taken the game more seriously especialy after scoring a goal :E

con-pilot
22nd Aug 2008, 01:26
Slightly odd that a key reason soccer is not more mainstream here in the States is that no TV provider (cable or terrestrial) is prepared to air 45 minutes of sport without a commercial break. No commercial sponsorship, no coverage.

Give the man a cigar. :ok:

It is as if gridiron Football was created for Commercial Television. Of course it was not, the game was played, both collegiality and professionally, years before the advent of television.

Howard Hughes
22nd Aug 2008, 01:33
Even Aussie Rules has succumbed to the almighty TV dollar, after a goal is scored in Aussie Rules the umpire does not bounce the ball to recommence the game, until a light in the grand stand extinguishes to say that the commercial break has finished!:ok:

CityofFlight
22nd Aug 2008, 01:59
How else are the women supposed to feed the men their nibbles and brew, without a break? ;)

And I must say, during Super Bowl, some of the commercials are worth the many breaks. :ok:

Howard Hughes
22nd Aug 2008, 02:10
I know they are old now, but I could watch (and do) the Terry Tate adds for hours...:ok:

CityofFlight
22nd Aug 2008, 02:33
This was among my favorites for this past Super Bowl...

YouTube - Rock Paper Scissors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV0B3maUK0E)

The simplicity....I'm sure a female thought of it. :p

jimma
22nd Aug 2008, 07:36
Its not called soccer in England, its football.......

Alloa Akbar
22nd Aug 2008, 10:52
For the uneducated colonials...

Football (UK) We take a BALL and we kick it with our foot.. ergo.. FOOTBALL.


Football (US) You take an oval object, and THROW it to one another.. a bit like Rugby... FOOTBALL?? PUH-LEEZE!:ugh:

Groundloop
22nd Aug 2008, 12:17
the other runs more or less constantly for an hour and a half.

Cobblers! Your average premiership player walks about or jogs a little bit most of the time. The probably only "run" for about ten minutes max in the whole game, and then only in short spurts.

If you want to see "real sportsmen" what about the Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal - five hours play (okay with breaks). Now professional tennis players are [email protected] fitter athletes that any footballer - US or UK!

brickhistory
22nd Aug 2008, 12:23
Like con, I played American football in high school, but only my senior year. I too was 6'5', but only weighed 140lbs. I also wasn't then, am not now, particularly gifted in the eye/hand coordination department. That combination wasn't exactly a powerful one.

I played tight end/defensive end. My team only had 14 players. It takes 11 to play. Get back to me on the non-cardio stuff. We were runner-up for the state championship in our division (tiny schools league). I logged a lot of bench time......

For basketball, we only had 6 players. I didn't log a lot of bench time there. We won state.

I now weigh more than con. :{

European football/soccer wasn't an option back in the stone age. It was mainly considered a sport for those in the 'alternative' lifestyle.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.......

Rugby? You gotta freakin' kidding me! There's no way I'd ever play that. 'Football' without pads. Full respect for those that do.

Whiskey Oscar Golf
22nd Aug 2008, 13:15
Without setting the cat amongst the pigeons, isn't soccer the most popular sport with women in the U.S.? That may be one reason the boys don't seem to go for it, they think it's a girls game. It would be nice to see what sort of uber team the U.S. would give the world if they did play it as a primary winter sport. Soccer is after all the world game.

Me, I like Australian Rules, because we get to be the best in the world due to the lack of anyone else being remotely interested in playing it.

Just lucky we play cricket eh.

AMF
22nd Aug 2008, 13:27
It's not my favorite sport, but anyone thinking gridiron football isn't cardio has simply never played the game, let alone done anything like a windsprint or interval training. Unlike soccer, on every play each gridiron player has a specific pattern to run or blocking assignment either at the line or downfield, to serve as another option or decoy. On every play at the snap of the ball these assignments require them to run/exert themselves at 100% or they aren't dong their job and the play breaks down. No trotting around back and forth just because the play is happening on the opposite side or downfield. Even in rugby (a FAR superior sport to soccer to the point it's an insult to even mention them in the same sentence) every player isn't fully engaged at 100% effort and speed to act as a blocker etc. during play.

And engaging in a full-contact/collision sport like gridiron, ice hockey, or rugby and playing through injuries wears a body down in ways no soccer player could ever understand.



Ive played them all in organized sports, including soccer, and competed and the State Champion level in cross country running and ice hockey, and comparing gridiron vs. soccer players on pure cardio fitness I'd put my money on a gridiron running back (obviously), defensive back (obviously), or wide reciever (obviously) over any soccer player you can name any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

There's a reason nobody ever seriously uses the term "grueling" to describe a soccer game. Now, I could see a worthy debate on the merits of gridiron vs. say...rugby as a sport and various player attributes, but soccer? It's simply a ridiculous comparison.

AMF
22nd Aug 2008, 14:21
Whiskey Oscar Golf Without setting the cat amongst the pigeons, isn't soccer the most popular sport with women in the U.S.? That may be one reason the boys don't seem to go for it, they think it's a girls game.

Very popular among girls, like softball, but there's actually a huge number of boys in the U.S. (usually encouraged by an over-protective mother) that play soccer when they're young. It acts as kind of a "gateway sport" to other, better ones they're individually suited for like gridiron, basketball, track and field, ice hockey, etc. Participation kind of peters-out during high-school however and it becomes kind of a niche sport where they ones doing it are really good but there arent that many of them because very few take it seriously at the college or professional level, not to mention soccer players don't get the girls.

It would be nice to see what sort of uber team the U.S. would give the world if they did play it as a primary winter sport.

If big-money professional-level gridiron, basketball, and baseball didn't exist and therefore didn't gobble up the best athletes, just that fact that we're a country of 300 million people to draw from would determine we'd be able to more than hold our own.

Soccer is after all the world game.

Soccer being the world game is mainly due to the fact it's a simple game that's easy to organize, with minimal risk for serious injury, and requires almost no equipment or money to play beyond finding a ball. A poor Brazilian village kid who's parents monthly income couldn't buy one set of shoulder pads or helmet can develop the same skills, practice as much, and engage in as much play as anyone anywhere else regardless of income, and rise to be a professional on the world stage. Many sports require a semi-serious monetary commitment for new equipment every few years for kids growing up while participating in them, etc., or conditions don't support it. For instance, there's only been one professional ice hockey player born in Paraguay (and he certainly didn't learn to play there), but an Eskimo kids could still organize a soccer game kicking around a seal head during the Arctic summer.

GreenWings
22nd Aug 2008, 14:24
City Of Flight said:

How else are the women supposed to feed the men their nibbles and brew, without a break?

Why would they need a break, and who said they could watch the game with their men in the first place? :E

...I'll go now...:bored:

GW

Strelnikov
22nd Aug 2008, 15:32
Apologies all - I may have misused the "cardio" expression.

What I meant was gridiron is made up of explosive 10 second spurts of high energy that a 300lb man can do.

In rugby the forwards (the big guys) are moving all the time with no breaks unless the ball goes out of play or there is a stoppage. One of the oddities of RL is that the fastest players (the backs) spend most of their time not doing much.

Now - much as I admire William Perry and Jerome Bettis etc - they wouldn't last 15 minutes in a rugby match because the fitness requirements are quite different.

They'd make great impact subs though!

PaperTiger
22nd Aug 2008, 16:53
It is as if gridiron Football was created for Commercial Television. Of course it was not, the game was played, both collegiality and professionally, years before the advent of television.Indeed. I am old enough to have attended AFL/NFL games which were not televised. The timeouts and huddles between downs were barely noticeable. Now that every game is televised, it's about 50% action, 50% 'commercial' stoppages :( .

AMF
22nd Aug 2008, 17:04
Strelnikov Apologies all - I may have misused the "cardio" expression.

What I meant was gridiron is made up of explosive 10 second spurts of high energy that a 300lb man can do.

In rugby the forwards (the big guys) are moving all the time with no breaks unless the ball goes out of play or there is a stoppage. One of the oddities of RL is that the fastest players (the backs) spend most of their time not doing much.

Now - much as I admire William Perry and Jerome Bettis etc - they wouldn't last 15 minutes in a rugby match because the fitness requirements are quite different.


Yet running backs like Emmett Smith, Barry Sanders, or Walter Payton not to mention almost any linebacker in the NFL could easily stay with and probably outlast most rugby players. Everyone knows Jerome Bettis-types aren't open field runners.

The 300 lb NFL player you speak of is invariably a lineman in the "trenches", doing a specific job of either opening/plugging holes in the opposing line for a couple seconds or protecting the quarterback. They're specialists. However, although most games are won or lost here (meaning if a team doesn't control the line they're usually destined for a loss), most NFL gridiron players aren't linemen.

Recievers running long downfield patterns every play as an outlet or blocking , the D-backs assigned chasing them, and running backs either with the ball, as an option, blocking downfield, or serving as decoy/fakes probably spend more time running/operating at 100% during a gridiron game than a rugby player.

If you brought forward passing and blocking into rugby you could make a better comparison. The problem is, most people who don't play or understand gridiron football watch the ball, not what those not directly involved in the ball-play are doing. They don't pay attention or see the reciever who just sprinted 50 yards across the field in order to draw defensive secondary players away from a running play designed to go the other direction.

Players at these positions (offensive and defensive backs and recievers) are some of the best-conditioned, fastest, and most mobile athletes in the world. The notion that they would be left gasping after 15 minutes of rugby because the position of Lineman exists in a tactical game of inches, is ludicrous.

obgraham
22nd Aug 2008, 17:11
Ive played them all...including...ice hockey, .AMF. Please. It's just "Hockey".

And that's where the true athletes play. Not freaks of nature or tub-o-lards. A few years ago, in a survey of all the major US sports, Mike Modano came out as the fittest and healthiest of the lot.

I like our football, too, but it encourages an unhealthy lifestyle. A 350 pound guy, no matter how fit, is just too big for his knee joints. And his heart.

Little Blue
22nd Aug 2008, 17:32
I'd rather have pins stuck into my eyes then have to watch 'GRIDIRON' !
Went to a game in Chicago and was actually LONGING to get back to the UK to watch my lot, Derby County, get another drubbing from whoever turned up !
I understand the rules, but don't understand why the Yanks get so hyped-up over ten seconds of mayhem then a minute of sweet FA !
But I'm also a huge cricket fan....so, I apologise in advance !

con-pilot
22nd Aug 2008, 17:38
But I'm also a huge cricket fan....so, I apologise !

As I've said before and will say again; anybody from the country that invented Cricket and actually like watching it, should not be allowed to criticize any other sport, including Synchronized Swiming. :p

AMF
22nd Aug 2008, 17:41
obgraham Quote:
Originally Posted by AMF
Ive played them all...including...ice hockey, .

AMF. Please. It's just "Hockey".

Oh believe me I agree. There's hockey, followed closely by box lacrosse, then much farther back there's all the other sports like gridiron, rugby, basketball, and other forms of lacrosse (indoor, field) struggling for 3rd place etc..until you reach the bottom where you'll find soccer.

Since this board is mainly populated by Brits (who mysteriously think it's Ok to name any so-called sport "cricket") and Aussies (who usually don't encounter ice if it doesn't come from an Eskie) I used the term "Ice" with hockey in order not to confuse those who don't know it's clearly the best sport in the world, or might confuse it with the girl's game that's played on grass with upside-down canes and a ball. I know I don't have to make this distinction for any Swedes, Finns, Czechs, Swiss, or Russians here however. They're puck-savy.

It's like discussing Indians with Brits. Unless you say "Red Indian" (as they term them) they'll think you're talking about people from India instead of real Indians like Comanches, Iroquois, or Sioux.

And that's where the true athletes play. Not freaks of nature or tub-o-lards. A few years ago, in a survey of all the major US sports, Mike Modano came out as the fittest and healthiest of the lot.

Yup. But probably most here probably don't have a clue who Mike Modano, or even Bobby Orr, is.

But if one uses the same logic those here are using as far as conditioning is concerned, from their point of view from their couches they would say hockey players aren't in great shape (compared to soccer or rugby players) because they only spend a couple minutes on the ice until the next line change, and then get to rest.

Ridiculous? Yes. It completely escapes them that there's a very good reason they can't spend the entire game on the ice.

AMF
22nd Aug 2008, 18:05
con-pilot Quote:

As I've said before and will say again; anybody from the country that invented Cricket and actually like watching it, should not be allowed to criticize any other sport, including Synchronized Swiming.

There's really nothing to say regarding a game that begins with some guy dramatically running 50 feet only to wind up tossing a ball like an uncoordinated, 9 year-old girl.

Freedom from Cricket ranks right up there with Freedom from Tryanny. Thank god our forefathers chose armed revolt and we didn't wind up saddled with it.

Solid Rust Twotter
22nd Aug 2008, 18:17
It was a toss up between cricket and the Clintons and the Brits got first pick.....:E

PaperTiger
22nd Aug 2008, 18:57
The notion that they would be left gasping after 15 minutes of rugby because the position of Lineman exists in a tactical game of inches, is ludicrous.The notion that they would be left gasping after 15 continuous minutes' running is maybe not quite so ludicrous though.

con-pilot
22nd Aug 2008, 19:56
It was a toss up between cricket and the Clintons and the Brits got first pick.....

Oh God, the truth hurts. :{

West Coast
22nd Aug 2008, 20:31
You guys should try beach volleyball and surfing. So much more fun than rubbing up against 300 pound sweaty men.

Strelnikov
22nd Aug 2008, 22:49
AMF of KSA - thanks for the infill and education - though it seemed a tad defensive which is always revealing!

I love gridiron, I repeat.

Rugby forwards smash into each other without protection for 80 minutes.

I can doff my hat and pay respect to the US sport.

Can't you do the same for the equivalent world sport?

NWSRG
22nd Aug 2008, 23:18
True football (the game our US friends call soccer) is the world game...and yes, that's probably because it's principles are simple, but beautiful.

And whatever way you cut it, Gridiron, Rugby League, Rubgy Union etc. just don't come close to having the universal following that football does.

As for fitness...well, to suggest that any of these sports outdoes the others in terms of fitness levels is pointless...the individuals at the top of each are all extremely fit people. For those who claim that football is less physical...sorry, but just look at some of the injuries we've seen in the Premiership over the last few years...some have been pretty gruesome. And remember, the Premiership is the glamourous end of the spectrum...countless amateur matches every weekend are the real life-blood of football.

For me, the one thing that football offers is the ability of one player, with one sublime pass, to change a game. Gridiron is sport by formula. RU and RL similar, but less so, still with room for individual flair. But football allows players of real genius to mesmerise with a single touch...to entrance a crowd with seemingly impossible wizardry on the ball...Pele, Best, Cruyff, Maradona, Bergkamp, Ronaldhino, Torres...they can do things that mere mortals can only dream about...

galaxy flyer
23rd Aug 2008, 00:12
US Football combines the worst two elements of our life--committee meetings and violence. George Will, BTW.

GF

con-pilot
23rd Aug 2008, 00:18
US Football combines the worst two elements of our life--committee meetings and violence. George Will, BTW.

I have never heard that before. That is funny. :D:D

Howard Hughes
23rd Aug 2008, 01:27
In rugby the forwards (the big guys) are moving all the time with no breaks unless the ball goes out of play or there is a stoppage.
Even at International level there are places to hide! If the play goes more than four or five phases, forwards will be lagging behind the play!;)

henry crun
23rd Aug 2008, 08:00
NWSRG: In your praise of football players you forgot one outstanding quality.

Time and time again we see a player tackled, he goes down, obviously very seriously injured because his face is contorted in the agony of his injury as he writhes on the ground.
We spectators confidently expect him to be carried off and taken to intensive care.

But, being a true soccer, sorry, football player, with supreme fortitude and, what can only be described as sheer out and out guts, he gets to his feet and within 30 seconds he carries on as if nothing has happened.
How he manages to recover is not for us to consider imitating because their powers of recovery are not of this world; as you say, "they can do things that mere mortals can only dream about".

Nick Riviera
23rd Aug 2008, 08:05
AMF

'There's really nothing to say regarding a game that begins with some guy dramatically running 50 feet only to wind up tossing a ball like an uncoordinated, 9 year-old girl.'

I'd love to see you facing a fast bowler. Once you had picked up your teeth from the pitch you might not be so scathing.

Howard Hughes
23rd Aug 2008, 08:06
Nice one Henry!:ok:

Sadly that is the only skill left in the great game...:rolleyes:

Capt.Grumpy
23rd Aug 2008, 12:05
Once you had picked up your teeth from the pitch you might not be so scathing.

You mean, after he was released from hospital :D

PaperTiger
23rd Aug 2008, 15:08
But, being a true soccer, sorry, football player, with supreme fortitude and, what can only be described as sheer out and out guts, he gets to his feet and within 30 seconds he carries on as if nothing has happened.Ever been kicked in the shin or ankle, henry ? Hard. It feels like someone has torn your entire leg off at the hip. After 30 seconds realising that didn't happen and with a bit of judicious rubbing and/or spray, you're fixed.

Capt.Grumpy
23rd Aug 2008, 19:45
Ever been kicked in the shin or ankle, henry ? Hard. It feels like someone has torn your entire leg off at the hip.

Have you ever watched a Rugby game ?????

The tackles and rucks (with 6 or 7 pairs of boots involved) are nothing compared to the shin or ankle tap............pleeeaaaase :rolleyes:

AMF
23rd Aug 2008, 20:21
Nick Riviera AMF

I'd love to see you facing a fast bowler. Once you had picked up your teeth from the pitch you might not be so scathing.

Capt.Grumpy Quote:

You mean, after he was released from hospital

No worries boys. In the days before helmet cages and visors when I played, faced (and got hit by) enough frozen pucks and lacrosse balls at close range (including in the face) to not shudder at the though of a cricket ball flicked at me. A baseball pitch at comparable levels is much faster, and I found crowding the plate kinda fun.

Not counting stitches, my only hostpital visits from playing sports were a blown out knee (gridiron football) and hockey (separated shoulder) not to mention losing 1 tooth the time a stick pushed it though my lower lip. Spittin' chicklets (losing teeth) and broken noses playing hockey was a not uncommon occurance.

Compared to pucks, lacrosse balls, and high-and-inside fastballs,the thought of facing a cricket bowl seems rather tame.

Strelnikov
23rd Aug 2008, 22:38
AMF - clearly you've never played cricket.

The ball hits the surface in cricket (that brings the trajectory uncertainties that are crucial to the game). In baseball it doesn't.

The only sport in Britain that corresponds to baseball is "rounders" that is mostly played at primary school.

PaperTiger
23rd Aug 2008, 22:45
Have you ever watched a Rugby game ?????

The tackles and rucks (with 6 or 7 pairs of boots involved) are nothing compared to the shin or ankle tap............pleeeaaaaseNot only have I watched, Grumpy, I played for many years. Forward, winger and fullback. Feet do NOT fly with the same venom in rugger as they do in football; which you might realise had your ankle/shin/knee ever been on the receiving end.

But thanks for reinforcing the image of rugger players', old chap. Or perhaps it's just that of the spectators ?

henry crun
23rd Aug 2008, 22:57
PaperTiger: yes, I do know what it is like to be hacked on the shins, and the effects lasted a damn sight longer than 30 seconds.

What I was referring to, as I feel sure you are aware, are the never ending histrionics to try and influence an impending decision by the referee.

Strelnikov
23rd Aug 2008, 23:02
Blimey - some raw nerves being touched here as tough men protect their manhood! Very touching stuff - you're all clearly hard as ****ing nails the lot of you. My sport is harder than yours - ooh get her.

I can't stand football (faked injuries that are endemic in footy make me wince - I'm ashamed of any Brit who partakes in the pantomine) but I will say in its defence that you're much more prone to a nasty injury in footy than you are in rugby.

In rugger the upper body takes the hit (that is well equipped for) but in footy your knees and ankles are exposed - and they are delicate items.

Little Blue
23rd Aug 2008, 23:17
Having broken every finger/thumb playing cricket, as well as losing two teeth and cracking several ribs, I'd sure take my chances with a baseball and a puck....then again, maybe I'm just a piss-poor cricketer who has yet to learn to hit the ball with the bloody bat !!?!:rolleyes:

Capt.Grumpy
23rd Aug 2008, 23:17
RUGGER...................what a splendidly quaint term old chap :hmm:


Try telling Gary Kirsten

YouTube - Shoaib Akthar bouncer Kirsten bleeding oww (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-NNkbFS6FE&feature=related)


or David Boon

YouTube - Ambrose breaks David Boons arm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ZNwWUJR3Y&feature=related)


that baseball is more dangerous :}

AMF
24th Aug 2008, 00:33
Strelnikov AMF - clearly you've never played cricket.

And I've not died from boredom while participating in a sport either. Coincidence?...I think not.

The ball hits the surface in cricket (that brings the trajectory uncertainties that are crucial to the game). In baseball it doesn't.

Besides a fastball, baseball pitchers invented curveballs, sliders, breaking balls, knuckleballs, change-ups, etc. in order to make sure trajectories remain uncertain for the batter. Some pitches were found to be too uncertain and outlawed (spitballs, scuffballs, etc.). The batter has less than an eyblink after it leaves the pitchers hand to decide if he just threw a 160 kph fastball at his head or merely a 150 kph and initially looks like it will brain him but winds up curving/sliding/breaking over the plate.

Baseball pitchers don't need the ground, and it's been observed that sizing up a pitch before it reaches him, and hitting the baseball to get on base may be the most difficult individual routine task in professional sports. If you hit and get on base only 3 out of 10 times at bat on average over a career, you're practically a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame. Only one person ever averaged 4 for 10 in a season.

The only sport in Britain that corresponds to baseball is "rounders" that is mostly played at primary school.

I wouldn't say it corresponds at all to baseball in terms of ball throwing or the pain of being hit by one. For example, a cricket ball that arrives at the batsman at 130 kph...meaning it must be close to a world-record 150 kph bowl before hitting the ground....is only traveling at just over 80 mph. 80 MPH is considered to be merely above average for high school baseball pitchers aged 17 years old. 85 mph (137 kph) isn't uncommon and some are as high as 90 mph (145). Again, this is for high school kids.

At the world level, on average a cricket bowl after being slowed by the ground is nearer to 110 to 120 kph (70 to 75 mph) when it reaches those stick things, ridiculously slow when compared to professional-level baseball pitches where high 80's to 100 mph is the usual range. 70-75 mph are change-up (pitch thrown purposely "too slow" in order to throw off the batter's timing) and knuckleball speeds, and nobody's much afraid of being hit by a either.

Strelnikov
24th Aug 2008, 00:38
AMF - perhaps you missed something in my earlier message. I'll try to articulate it better.

The cricket ball hits the surface (right in front of the batsman who has microseconds to respond) that deviates its trajectory (but not always). In baseball it doesn't.

Worth repeating for emphasis.

In baseball it doesn't.

It's a really really crap sport - thats why only you, the Japs and Cuba play it!

(I like gridiron though!)

brickhistory
24th Aug 2008, 00:54
It's a really really crap sport - thats why only you, the Japs and Cuba play it!

And there's only one World Series in baseball. True, we don't 'others' play in it, but at least it's only one.

Not an endless series of different 'cups,' so to speak.....




There's lots of games for different folks. Soccer/football just isn't gonna catch on in the US at the same level as our other 'established' major sports. At least until a lot more of us start to squat to pee (see the Hugo/Venezuela thread for background on that).

Deal with it and move on. Enjoy yours. We'll quietly snigger at soccer and watch our overpaid athletes while you watch yours and think the same of us.

Except the athletes that leave you and come here. Wonder why that is?

Strelnikov
24th Aug 2008, 01:10
Another raw nerve touched.

Cricket is a world sport - baseball isn't - it's rubbish.

American football is a fine sport - but the world doesn't play it.

Basketball (which I was quite good at) is a fine sport - but the world doesn't play it.

The world doesn't play Yankee sports.

There's got to be a reason why?

con-pilot
24th Aug 2008, 01:16
Cricket is a world sport - baseball isn't - it's rubbish.


Jeez, how old are you, 16 or something?

The world doesn't play Yankee sports.

There's got to be a reason why?
Today 19:54

Quite frankly we don't care.

obgraham
24th Aug 2008, 01:19
Well different strokes for....

Baseball's a never ending parade of scratching your privates, hiking your pants, spitting, fiddling with your hat, wiping your nose, etc. etc.

All to give time for the announcers to drone on forever about the beauty of it all. I fell asleep at Safeco Field last year it was so dull.

Gimme some real fooootbawul, or hockey any day.

Come to think of it, I came across an awesome pingpong volley yesterday!

AMF
24th Aug 2008, 01:19
Strelnikov AMF - perhaps you missed something in my earlier message. I'll try to articulate it better.

The cricket ball hits the surface (right in front of the batsman who has microseconds to respond) that deviates its trajectory (but not always). In baseball it doesn't.

Worth repeating for emphasis.

In baseball it doesn't.

It's a really really crap sport - thats why only you, the Japs and Cuba play it!

(I like gridiron though!)

Oh I understand. The ball bouncing right in front of the batsman clearly makes it a game of luck as far as bowling and hitting is concerned, and fielding of course is almost non-existant (9 covering 360 degrees as opposed to 7 covering less than 90).

But I'm sure soon someone will jump in and say that Professional baseball players would never be able to hit a cricket ball because it's oh so much more difficult with that fat paddle, or run between the lines because baseball players only know how to turn 90 degrees to the left when running bases. :rolleyes:

parabellum
24th Aug 2008, 01:32
A top class fast bowler in cricket will average about 145kph each ball.

con-pilot
24th Aug 2008, 01:43
Okay, time to tell a deep dark secret. Now I just may be expelled by my fellow Americans here, but never the less, now is the time for truth.

When I lived in England I played Little League Baseball. Okay, no big deal, my father was in the Air Force and we play other teams on our base, Bentwaters, the sister base, Woodbridge. Then we would play other U.S. Force Bases around England. Again no big deal.

Now time for the secret. I also played cricket when I was not playing baseball with the same age kids, English kids. I know, I hang my head in shame. :eek:

With the batting skills I learned playing baseball I knocked the crap out of the cricket ball. Not only did I have a plus .700 batting average hitting that stupid bouncing ball with a flat bat, most of the time I hit what I considered home runs. The English kids on the teamed I played for loved me. We never lost a game when I was batsman. Until some of the teams we played against got some other U.S. Air Force brats to play on their teams.

Oh, my batting average playing baseball was around .200 and damn few home runs.

Of course I'm talking about 12 to 14 year old kids, but....

henry crun
24th Aug 2008, 03:13
Con: I hesitate to step back into this arg... sorry, debate, but I don't understand this batting average you use for baseball, or the way you have applied it to cricket.

What does .200 at baseball mean ?
Do you mean you scored an average of 700 runs per innings at cricket ? if so, kid or no kids stuff, that has got to be some sort of record. :D

AMF
24th Aug 2008, 03:15
Strelnikov Another raw nerve touched.

Cricket is a world sport - baseball isn't - it's rubbish.


You're seriously not implying that people watched cricket from afar and decided "hey, let's play that wonderful game it's so superior to our own native ones!" are you?

Cricket is only a "world sport" in the sense that the British imposed it wherever they imposed themselves....pretty much everywhere they could manage it. Then, as the Empire receded from the four corners of the planet they left this silly game and empty filing cabinets behind for the Natives to use like so many dregs remaining at the bottom of an Imperialist coffee pot.

Find a cricket-playing-or-tolerating populace (India, Pakistan, SA, Oz, West Indies, that Place where the Kiwis live, etc) and you'll usually see a former British Colony...penal or otherwise. Outside that...Yawn...It's not like Cricket Mania is sweeping the world in formerly British-less places. The Brits purposely implanted cricket in their colonies like the French mandated French...as a tool of Empire.

In other words, Cricket really could more accurately be described as an "Outmoded Empire Sport" for what happened to be a far-reaching Empire once upon a time, not a World sport based on general popularity like soccer.

It's "popularity" owes more to the Royal Navy. Take it out of the equation and what you'd have is the British version of Irish hurling or Canadian lacrosse in terms of worldwide participation, the difference being lacrosse and hurling are real sports and offer real excitement.

Rollingthunder
24th Aug 2008, 03:25
In cricket, a player's batting average is the total number of runs he has scored divided by the number of times he has been out. Since the number of runs a player scores and how often he gets out are primarily measures of his own playing ability, and largely independent of his team mates, batting average is a good statistic for describing an individual player's skill as a batsman. The number is also simple to interpret intuitively, being approximately the average number of runs the batsman scores per innings. Batting average has been used to gauge cricket players' relative skills since the 18th century.

Most players have career batting averages in the range 5 to 50

In baseball, the batting average (BA) is defined as the ratio of hits to at bats.

Henry Chadwick, an English statistician raised on cricket, was an influential figure in the early history of baseball. In the late 19th century he adapted the concept behind the cricket batting average to devise a similar statistic for baseball. Rather than simply copy cricket's formulation of runs scored divided by outs, he realised that hits divided by at bats would provide a better measure of individual batting ability. This is because of an intrinsic difference between the two sports; scoring runs in cricket is dependent almost only on one's own batting skill, whereas in baseball it is largely dependent on having other good hitters in your team. Chadwick noted that hits are independent of teammates' skills, so used this as the basis for the baseball batting average. His reason for using at bats rather than outs is less obvious, but it leads to the intuitive idea of the batting average being a percentage reflecting how often a batter gets on base, whereas hits divided by outs is not as simple to interpret in real terms.

In modern times, a season batting average higher than .300 is considered to be excellent, and an average higher than .400 a nearly unachievable goal. The last player to do so, with enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting championship, was Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox, who hit .406 in 1941, though the best modern players either threaten to or actually do achieve it occasionally, if only for brief periods of time.

Ty Cobb holds the record for highest career batting average with .366, 8 points higher than Rogers Hornsby who has the second highest average in history at .358. Cobb's career batting average record will probably never be broken, since even the best of modern hitters find it difficult to hit higher than .360 in more than one or two seasons, let alone consistently throughout their entire careers.

con-pilot
24th Aug 2008, 03:32
What does .200 at baseball mean ?
Do you mean you scored an average of 700 runs per innings at cricket ? if so, kid or no kids stuff, that has got to be some sort of record.

Hi henry , as another poster pointed out, the batting percentage is how many hits you get at bat per every 10 stands at bat. In other words if you hit the ball two times at bat in ten chances you have a .200 hitting average, 3 times a .300 hitting average and so on. In my post I claimed a .700 hitting average, and to be honest I probably exaggerated as it was many, many years ago. However, the point was it is a lot easier for me, and the other Yank kids, to have a much higher hitting average playing Cricket as compared to baseball. It was the flat bat you see, made it much easier.

Yes, 700 runs an inning is rather ludicrous. I don't believe that it could ever happen in cricket or baseball.

Also, I was hit by both the cricket balls and baseballs, the baseball hurt a lot worse. Again, remember all the player were the same age.

(Except for this one kid that played for Mindenhall Air Force Base, I swear he was at least 18 or 20.)

Sorry Rollingthunder , I didn't see your post, very well explained. :ok:

AMF
24th Aug 2008, 04:00
con-pilot Okay, time to tell a deep dark secret. Now I just may be expelled by my fellow Americans here, but never the less, now is the time for truth.

No worries Con. Out with it, we're all comrades here..mea culpa away...

When I lived in England I played Little League Baseball. Okay, no big deal, my father was in the Air Force and we play other teams on our base, Bentwaters, the sister base, Woodbridge. Then we would play other U.S. Force Bases around England. Again no big deal.

So far so good, through example you were in a far-off land helping to keep your patch of that world normal...

Now time for the secret. I also played cricket when I was not playing baseball with the same age kids, English kids.

CON WTF WERE YOU THINKING!!!....

I know, I hang my head in shame.

Well......I respect the he11 out of you for being able to admit this Con, and I can only assume the cricket teams had cheerleaders and if not, you knew the players' sisters attended the games and this enticed you to be there...

With the batting skills I learned playing baseball I knocked the crap out of the cricket ball.

Not suprising, but HE11 YEAH!

Not only did I have a plus .700 batting average hitting that stupid bouncing ball with a flat bat, most of the time I hit what I considered home runs.

Mickey Mantle style...just like an Okie!


The English kids on the teamed I played for loved me. We never lost a game when I was batsman. Until some of the teams we played against got some other U.S. Air Force brats to play on their teams.

Quite literally, beating them at their own game. Today of course, those same kids hate you for it....

Oh, my batting average playing baseball was around .200 and damn few home runs.

Thus proving that if MLB baseball players took some estrogen and decided to play cricket, they'd beat any competition worldwide by scores in the neighbourhood of 4217 to 8.

Of course I'm talking about 12 to 14 year old kids, but....

No "buts" about it, those English kids are all grown up now and wearing long pants and (if they haven't blocked the memory in shame) are undoubtedly still too red-eared, embarrassed to speak of it out loud. That would explain their insistance as adults that cricket is superior to American baseball...they can actually hit the ball occasionally, and with a 360-degree field there's no such thing as a foul so they can..you know...still feel like they've achieved something if paddle merely happens to meet the ball. How quaint!

Con, you are hereby forgiven for all your past Sport Sins because you handed their tea-sipping butts to them on a plate. Now go in peace, and play hockey.

Howard Hughes
24th Aug 2008, 04:21
What's happened to the football? All this girly talk of cricket and baseball, my bats bigger than yours, I can hit further than you!;)

Let's get back to the big hit's...:ok:

By the way a big hit is not a kick in the shin! Especially when nine out of ten times, the TV replay shows no contact at all...:rolleyes:

AMF
24th Aug 2008, 05:44
Howard Hughes What's happened to the football? All this girly talk of cricket and baseball, my bats bigger than yours, I can hit further than you!

Let's get back to the big hit's...

By the way a big hit is not a kick in the shin! Especially when nine out of ten times, the TV replay shows no contact at all...

My apologies sir. I'm guilty of debating the merits of cricket vs. baseball. Sorry! One may as well debate the merits of English Corkies vs. French Poodles. I mean really, who cares?

Likewise NFL football vs. rugby. Either the 3rd and 4th best sports or the 4th and 3rd best sports. Take your pick, I care not which, not unlike I don't care whether the late-Mark Spitfires were better fighters than P-51 Mustangs because although they are both pretty cool and respectable, we all know (or should know) the F4U-4 Corsair was better than either of them.

Soccer vs.........oh let's not even waste time discussing those Drama Queens vs. anything. When the best adjective anyone can come up with to describe a competitive game involving 2 opposing team is the word "Beautiful", then it's time to bulldoze the whole candya$$ affair and start over from scratch.

At the other end of the spectrum to Glorified Kickball is Hockey, and up until the point they re-introduce actual gladitorial combat to professional sports, is easily superior to any other. It's the fastest sport, freewheeling, every player (except goalie) is involved in offense and defense, it's a collision sport requiring toughness, conditioning, and finesse, fighting is accepted as part of the game and sometimes expected, and the Holy Grail of hitting isn't just turning someone into an out-cold starfish on the ice, but putting an opponent through a huge pane of shattering glass. And (take note soccer fans) they penalize "diving", and leave it to the fans to decide which amazing plays are "beautiful", they don't have to try and sell it as "The Beautiful Game" to the masses by calling itself that, like Michael Jackson deciding one day to dub himself 'The King of Pop".

Box lacrosse is second only to hockey because skating is faster than running, but except for that, all the other attributes of hockey are there.

As for the rest, I leave it for the rest of you to decide how to fill-in the Sport Hierarchy list from 3rd place down to Soccer.

obgraham
24th Aug 2008, 07:20
Soccer (Football, whatever...) would be vastly improved if they would just let the lads duke it out on the field when they had a disagreement. No need for flopping about if you could just up and deck the guy what kicked your sorry shin.

Howard Hughes
24th Aug 2008, 07:47
Box lacrosse is second only to hockey because skating is faster than running, but except for that, all the other attributes of hockey are there.
In that case Hurling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSdjLyGA8Oc) might come in at number 3...:ok:

AMF
24th Aug 2008, 08:18
Howard Hughes Quote:
Box lacrosse is second only to hockey because skating is faster than running, but except for that, all the other attributes of hockey are there.

In that case Hurling might come in at number 3...

I'll accept that... hurling is an awesome sport. I'd rank it tied at number 2 with box lacrosse if it had more body-checking as a routine affair and played inside an area with boards you could slam an opponent into.

But since it offers the chance for serious injury with swinging sticks, stickhandling skills, freewheeling action, speed, mobility, great conditioning and toughness for players to carry-on through injuries, I hereby rank Hurling at Number 3 in the Hierarchy of Best Sports, thus placing it above both NFL football and Rugby. Here's the revised list;

1.............. Hockey
2.............. Box Lacrosse
3.............. Hurling
4. ............ NFL football or Rugby (the best stick-less sports).
4.5............The Other Lacrosses
5. to ???.....All the other sports in no particular order except Soccer.
Last...........Soccer aka Kickball

So I have judged, and therefore, let it be entered into the Permanent Record.

Howard Hughes
24th Aug 2008, 09:22
WOO HOO, for Aussie NFL fans channel 10 will show NFL matches live this year on their HD channel! :ok:

This is the first time NFL has been on free to air (with the exception of the Super bowl) for about 7 years! I knew if I held out getting pay TV for long enough that Foxtel would finally give in!;)

Little Blue
24th Aug 2008, 13:53
My father always used to say to me...
' Son, be wary of a man with one eyebrow, but NEVER trust a man who doesn't like football (soccer to the Yanks !)'
Although, after watching my lot of overpaid primadonnas being played off the park yesterday, maybe my dad hadn't thought of what pain and distress can be caused by being unfortunate enough to be a fan of Derby County !! Nearly a bloody year since our last win....jeez !
Well, I'm over the in States again, next week, and will be looking to take in a bit of sports viewing. Might even bring my Cricket 'paddle' with me !
There's some mighty big flat areas around Vegas !
;)

brickhistory
24th Aug 2008, 14:58
Might even bring my Cricket 'paddle' with me !
There's some mighty big flat areas around Vegas !

With that paddle and proximity to Vegas, you might get a much different group of spectators/participants than imagined!

PaperTiger
24th Aug 2008, 15:25
What I was referring to, as I feel sure you are aware, are the never ending histrionics to try and influence an impending decision by the referee.Yes I understood your gist henry, and no denying some players feign injury for that very purpose. Used to be just them bleedin' foreign chappies, but sadly the British upper lip ain't what it used to be.

However, not every player who collapses into a writhing heap followed by a miracle recovery a minute later is faking. For the reason I gave; it hurts like **** initally. Then again maybe I'm just a big girl's blouse.

PaperTiger
24th Aug 2008, 15:34
So I have judged, and therefore, let it be entered into the Permanent Record.And very enlightening it is too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the worthiness of your "sports" are directly proprotional to the amount of sanctioned violence contained therein.

But where is boxing in your list ? Ultimate fighting ? Pro wrestling ?
Perhaps they do not qualify because they are individual contests.

I'll take skill over brute force. A sport should reward talent and not just separate the hairy men from the girlymen. (I have deliberately excluded women's sports all of which should be immediately and permanently banned.)

PaperTiger
24th Aug 2008, 15:46
Do you mean you scored an average of 700 runs per innings at cricket ?I believe con is claiming to have struck, in some fashion or other and in a totally unpredictable direction, 7 out of every 10 balls. And hacked wildly at the remainder (Steeeriiike !). Good enouigh for a village green number 6 perhaps, a competent cricketer will make contact 9 times out of ten or better.

And that baseball average is not actually a count of hits (contacting the ball). It's the number of times you reach base; walks, balks and hbp don't count.

con-pilot
24th Aug 2008, 16:07
I believe con is claiming to have struck, in some fashion or other and in a totally unpredictable direction, 7 out of every 10 balls. And hacked wildly at the remainder (Steeeriiike !). Good enouigh for a village green number 6 perhaps, a competent cricketer will make contact 9 times out of ten or better.

Yup, cause there ain't no foul balls in cricket, they all count, shoot, you can hit the ball behind you. Look at it this way, flat bat + no foul balls = lots of hits. :p

Little Blue
24th Aug 2008, 17:26
There are plenty of 'foul balls' in cricket...I should know, cos I've bowled plenty of em !
A no ball is the most annoying. Overstepping the 'popping crease' with your front foot, or bowling above waist height? CHECK !
A wide ball.....so wide that the batsmen can't reach either on the offside, or (especially during the one-day version of the game) on the legside. CHECK.
I do think that the newest version of the game, 20-20, would really catch the attention of the Yanks, cos its fast and furious, three hours long and there is ALWAYS a winner !!
I played softball at school and cos I played cricket, I very rarely missed the ball, but cricket does have a far greater range of shots, either off the face or with the edge....
I reckon that If I was sat in front of the telly from the age of five and force-fed Gridiron/basball, then I'd be a fanatic. However, it was Football/rugby and cricket. Brainwashing, if you like.
Still, I've had some of the happiest times of my life playing these sports and getting hammered afterwards,,,,,the beauty of the team. And that is evident in EVERY sport in the world. You can't beat the humour/camaradie of the dressing room !;)