Worst Sport Today? (2011)

[FoxxyBrown1111]

No, even with that rule it´s not working. You either have to be tied in two games, or being down by one goal to reach a tie and by that winning on the away rule after two games. But it´s impossible in soccer to turn from loosing to winning in one game.

 

[GWAR79]

As far as tv goes, amongst the non obscure sports, I would have to pick American Football.

My Reasons:

Too many replays,
too many commercials,
overhyped factors (i.e. story after story on espn),
T.Owens type guys, and
the biggest reason, few actual minutes played (what is it like 8 minutes) and of the actual played minutes, maybe 2 are interesting.

Live and at the event, anything but golf. Football, soccer, basketball, road races, base ball, boxing all fun to attend...

 

[pmcg76]

Racing; see above.
Football; It´s the forward pass, it´s the forward pass that makes the difference.

BTW: For all those who don´t grasp Football; There is no "2-Minute-Standing-around". The ball is put in play latest after 40 seconds* between plays. There are only max. 6 time outs (40 seconds). And yes commercial breaks are bad (max. 110 seconds), but they are no original rules in the book.

* And in that time there is pre snap action, men are put in motion, substitutions are made, plays are called. A whole lot of stress and time pressure (you get penalized immediatley if delaying).
Now look at soccer: Players rolling on the ground for minutes pretenting injury, players discussing endlessly with refs, players shaving time by passing the ball to each other without any attacks, players discussing minutes for who´s shooting a kick, how far the defense wall has to stand, etc...
If Football is boring, there must be a new word invented for the dullness of soccer games.
And another big advantage in Football: It´s never over until the last second. You can be behind and still win with one single play when time expires**. It´s simply impossible in soccer. The max. you can do there is tieing a game when behind.

** Here is a great example of a last second miracle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3ykWbu2Gl0

Its really hard to take anything you say as serious, you have clearly stated that you hate soccer and that American football is your favourite sport, of course this means there is zero balance in any of your arguments.

Last minutes miracles dont happen in soccer, right, how about Schalke losing the Bundesliga in the very last minute of the very last game of the season due to Bayern Munich scoring a very late goal. Thats 7-8 months of football decided at the death.

Liverpool losing the league to Arsenal on goal difference thanks to the last kick of the game in the last game of the league.

Bayern Munich losing the champions league in two minutes having been ahead going into injury time.

Those are just of the top of my head. It happens countless times.

I have lost count of the times Man Utd have scored late, late goals to save their skins. I know because I hate United.

One thing you omitted, teams can control the clock to a certain degree in American football which is more difficult in soccer. Teams will run the clock down to ensure the other team dont get the ball again just making sure they are in field goal range with maybe 10 seconds left. I follow the Patriots, Brady was/is an expert at that.

How about with 2 minutes to go in American football, if a team are leading even by a point and have possession, the game is over. The QB can take a knee or whatever four times. Pathetic way to end a game.

I dont mind people bashing soccer for many of the reasons listed, its not even my favourite sport but your attempts to bash soccer whilst gushing over American football are hilarious.

Sports are whatever people themselves get into, most people think cycling is boring yet we love cycling but still often complain about how boring races are!!! Oh, Colorado is boring, this race was boring, that race was boring.

I have been to watch live events at top level in Cycling, Soccer, Gaelic football, Aussie Rules(AFL), Rugby Union/League, American footbalL(NFL), MLB Baseball, Ice Hockey, Athletics. Of these Baseball was the only one that really bored me to tears and I went to a few games and understood the rules perfectly.

I prefer the nuances of Rugby union over the repetitive bang and bash of Rugby league even though most observers would prefer Rugby league. Regardless of sport, I have yet to see one where every single game is interesting, some are dull, others exciting. Thats the way it is.

 

[rickshaw]

Double WOW

Since both chess and boxing has been mentioned, I give you chess boxing (which technically might also be some kind of biathlon).

Chess boxing in Iceland AND Siberia! I'm a big biathlon fan, Nordic or otherwise.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Its really hard to take anything you say as serious, you have clearly stated that you hate soccer and that American football is your favourite sport, of course this means there is zero balance in any of your arguments.

Last minutes miracles dont happen in soccer, right, how about Schalke losing the Bundesliga in the very last minute of the very last game of the season due to Bayern Munich scoring a very late goal. Thats 7-8 months of football decided at the death.

Liverpool losing the league to Arsenal on goal difference thanks to the last kick of the game in the last game of the league.

Bayern Munich losing the champions league in two minutes having been ahead going into injury time.

Those are just of the top of my head. It happens countless times.

I have lost count of the times Man Utd have scored late, late goals to save their skins. I know because I hate United.

One thing you omitted, teams can control the clock to a certain degree in American football which is more difficult in soccer. Teams will run the clock down to ensure the other team dont get the ball again just making sure they are in field goal range with maybe 10 seconds left. I follow the Patriots, Brady was/is an expert at that.

How about with 2 minutes to go in American football, if a team are leading even by a point and have possession, the game is over. The QB can take a knee or whatever four times. Pathetic way to end a game.

I dont mind people bashing soccer for many of the reasons listed, its not even my favourite sport but your attempts to bash soccer whilst gushing over American football are hilarious.

Sports are whatever people themselves get into, most people think cycling is boring yet we love cycling but still often complain about how boring races are!!! Oh, Colorado is boring, this race was boring, that race was boring.

I have been to watch live events at top level in Cycling, Soccer, Gaelic football, Aussie Rules(AFL), Rugby Union/League, American footbalL(NFL), MLB Baseball, Ice Hockey, Athletics. Of these Baseball was the only one that really bored me to tears and I went to a few games and understood the rules perfectly.

I prefer the nuances of Rugby union over the repetitive bang and bash of Rugby league even though most observers would prefer Rugby league. Regardless of sport, I have yet to see one where every single game is interesting, some are dull, others exciting. Thats the way it is.

You don´t have to take it serious, but can´t say it´s not balanced. Since you have yet to show where i was wrong a single time...
Anyway, i have just said that going from loosing to winning in one game is impossible in soccer... If you make that stretch comparing in-game-situations of matches teams have no control over (Schalke vs. Munich), yes you can expand the list endlessly. How about the wild card race in the NFL?...
Pipo bash football here. That´s ok, since it´s a thread of "worst sports" opinions. I just criticised those who talked about something they don´t understand, like "standing around for minutes" in football. That´s plain and simple false...
No, you are wrong. Actual playing time is 11 minutes after the snap. Pre-Snap action isn´t calculated. If you do such cherry picking "analyzation" in soccer, you come up with an action of 2 minutes: Around 18 SOG tries, just 9 hitting the target (both teams). Compare that to Hockey for example (around 60 Shots on target per game). Even netto playing time is less in soccer (around 50 minutes, exact 60 in football)...
Bayern Munich? Injury Time? Hilarious to death. Here you bring an example to proof soccer is great, by coming up with the worst rule in sports: A ref deciding when 90 minutes are over, or 92, or 95, or whatever. The game is controled solely by the refs decision when to end a game. That leads to terrible outcomes like this: WC 2006, Italy-Australia 0-0, ref says lets play on until Italy is safe. 95th minute, player falls, ref decides penalty kick, Italy scores, ref decides to end the game immediatley. Wow. Why not dicing the score instead of BS the fans? Or why not handing the cup before a tournament? Same thing happened to Munich, or endless other times in games i witnessed. It really stinks....

TMW in football? Game over? Omg... Yes, if your opponent is left with zero timeouts. But only then. Otherwise magic things happen if at least 1 second is left on the clock. Like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nt6HjqtJt8

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I think you bring up a good point, and I find myself have to explain American football as much as defend it when it's criticized. Or cycling to Americans for that matter.

This is why I singled out boxing. I do know quite a bit about the sport and it's history. Thus believe today it's as bad as any sport out there. It and the "Olympic Experience".

On the flip side, for the life of me I don't get cricket. But I don't think it's the worst sport, I just honestly don't know enough about it to make such an evaluation. If I spent a summer in Bermuda watching it I may change my mind and think it's great, or awful.

Yes, i think boxing everybody knows a little at least. Unluckily i was just 3 years old when "The thrilla in Manilla" happened, or the "Rumble in the Jungle". Must have been great times.
Cricket i don´t get to. But it seems it´s like baseball, only that the game takes a little longer. I heared they play one for 3 days!?

But then, why Piquet? Prost and Senna in '88 and '89 were teammates; yes you had the 1-team championship but there was no backing down over who was #1.

Watching Peter Dumbreck in the Mercedes in 1999 WAS like watching a Boeing 747 start. And you should give Le Mans another go. 2007, 2008 and 2011 were really good races. 2009 was a bit processional after the first 8 hours, while 2010 could have been exciting had all the Peugeots not blown up. Sebring has been pretty good in the last few years (in 2008 you had the LMP2 Porsches challenging and beating the LMP1 Audi, which would never happen at Le Mans because of the gulf in straight line speed) too.

I still took Piquet as last true champ, b/c after that, the 1-Team-Championships took place. Nothing to take away from Senna, the guy who was fast in any car. The best ever. Prost was great before 1988 too (duels with Mansell, Lauda, etc.). Mansell himself was great. That guy was just unlucky. Loosing wheels, fuel or whatever in the last round of decisive races. I loved that guy.
I´d have given LeMans another try. But they took away the greatest spectacle in racing: The seemingly endless straight race track. It´s like somebody would have amputated Carl Lewis one leg. Was it still fun to watch then?...
It´s just not the same anymore. That bump in the middle of the road looks sooo wrong. No, i´ll not watch it again. Just another example where functionaries destroyed a once great sport. Sad story...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I understand your reasons for liking football Foxy, and I agree. The athletic dynamic, forward pass, comebacks, etc. But what I don't get is what you're saying about soccer. Are you saying that if a team is ahead by one goal with X minutes to play, they will win 99% of the time?

Showing hail mary passes isn't really the best way to explain comebacks in football, IMO. There are plenty games where in the last 5 minutes the game seesawed back and forth until the last second. And plenty more where it looked like one team was going to get blown out, then came back and won.

I agree with the criticisms of football that there are too many time outs and commercials, and the reviews are too long. I think there should only be 3 time outs total per game (not 6), two should only be 40 second time outs, and there should be no 2-minute warning. And if referees haven't been able to review a replay within a minute, the ruling on the field should stand.

The pauses between plays don't bother me at all, because I understand the strategy of play calling and substitutions quite well, thus it's fun to have some 30 seconds to guess what plays each team will run, and what you would do if you were the coach.

Since both chess and boxing has been mentioned, I give you chess boxing.

Now someone needs to combine golf with cage fighting.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I understand your reasons for liking football Foxy, and I agree. The athletic dynamic, forward pass, comebacks, etc. But what I don't get is what you're saying about soccer. Are you saying that if a team is ahead by one goal with X minutes to play, they will win 99% of the time?

Showing hail mary passes isn't really the best way to explain comebacks in football, IMO. There are plenty games where in the last 5 minutes the game seesawed back and forth until the last second. And plenty more where it looked like one team was going to get blown out, then came back and won.

I agree with the criticisms of football that there are too many time outs and commercials, and the reviews are too long. I think there should only be 3 time outs total per game (not 6), two should only be 40 second time outs, and there should be no 2-minute warning. And if referees haven't been able to review a replay within a minute, the ruling on the field should stand.

The pauses between plays don't bother me at all, because I understand the strategy of play calling and substitutions quite well, thus it's fun to have some 30 seconds to guess what plays each team will run, and what you would do if you were the coach.


Now someone needs to combine golf with cage fighting.

If i remember correctly, it´s even above 99% (those idiotic ties included) once you hit the last 5 or 10 minutes. Brian Burke of advanced NFL-Stats did a study about that too (if i only could find the link in all my archive ).

I had two reasons to show the hail marys. 1st i think it´s simple to understand for even those who don´t crasp the game and excitement. To show a awesome 90-Yard-Comeback-Drive like SF vs. Cincy in 88 would be too dificult to fully understand. 2nd, to convince somebody, you better come up with the best.

All those commercial breaks and the TMW are bad. I also mentioned that as critic before. But all the other timeouts are necessary for the greatness of the game. Imagine there would be no Instant Replay like in soccer (BTW, just look at WC 2010 Argentina vs. Paraquay; it´s disgusting), or the 4th and Short Conversion-Try. Without timeouts, there simply wouldn´t be any, only kicking cheap FG´s/Punts, or like in soccer some truly confused desperate and chaotic running forward.

Yeah, the inter play action is another important aspect of the game. Without it, some mad Prof like Martz would have no chance. He would have to reduce his playbook from 200 to 10 plays. Basically football would look as confused as soccer, depending mostly on luck... OTOH, practise could be as short as in soccer, max. 2 hrs per day.

 

[pmcg76]

If i remember correctly, it´s even above 99% (those idiotic ties included) once you hit the last 5 or 10 minutes. Brian Burke of advanced NFL-Stats did a study about that too (if i only could find the link in all my archive ).

I had two reasons to show the hail marys. 1st i think it´s simple to understand for even those who don´t crasp the game and excitement. To show a awesome 90-Yard-Comeback-Drive like SF vs. Cincy in 88 would be too dificult to fully understand. 2nd, to convince somebody, you better come up with the best.

All those commercial breaks and the TMW are bad. I also mentioned that as critic before. But all the other timeouts are necessary for the greatness of the game. Imagine there would be no Instant Replay like in soccer (BTW, just look at WC 2010 Argentina vs. Paraquay; it´s disgusting), or the 4th and Short Conversion-Try. Without timeouts, there simply wouldn´t be any, only kicking cheap FG´s/Punts, or like in soccer some truly confused desperate and chaotic running forward.

Yeah, the inter play action is another important aspect of the game. Without it, some mad Prof like Martz would have no chance. He would have to reduce his playbook from 200 to 10 plays. Basically football would look as confused as soccer, depending mostly on luck... OTOH, practise could be as short as in soccer, max. 2 hrs per day.

What I find ridiculous about your argument is the idea that people who dont find American football interesting just dont understand the game but Soccer is just rubbish because you played it. Duplicity much.

I understand American football perfectly well and the points other posters make in regards to disliking it are totally valid as are a lot of your points about the faults of soccer. Both sports have faults so its then down to personal choice but you behave like Soccer is terrible whilst American football is flawless and misunderstood and you re-hash that with the same vitriol every single time. Like a scorned lover or something.

Can you unsderstand that the constant stoppages in play during American football are the equivilant of bad refs, diving etc in Soccer to many people. Its just a case of what people are prepared to tolerate more of. Eradicates the faults of both sports and I gurantee most people would still choose Soccer.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

What I find ridiculous about your argument is the idea that people who dont find American football interesting just dont understand the game but Soccer is just rubbish because you played it. Duplicity much.

I understand American football perfectly well and the points other posters make in regards to disliking it are totally valid as are a lot of your points about the faults of soccer. Both sports have faults so its then down to personal choice but you behave like Soccer is terrible whilst American football is flawless and misunderstood and you re-hash that with the same vitriol every single time. Like a scorned lover or something.

Wrong! I have nothing against grounded critics like from Alpe. I did the same very often about football (about commericals, corruption, drugs). That´s wayy different to when critic comes from someone who never watched and/or participated and/or understand the rules. Then nonsense like "standing around for minutes" comes around. I hope you get it now, b/c i tried to explain you that before.

Can you unsderstand that the constant stoppages in play during American football are the equivilant of bad refs, diving etc in Soccer to many people. Its just a case of what people are prepared to tolerate more of. Eradicates the faults of both sports and I gurantee most people would still choose Soccer.

Absolutely wrong. The stoppages are essential to the game. Without them it would be a complete different game (something like rugby with forward passes, i guess). I also explained that just some posts ago too.

I have no problem if soccer is more popular in many countries, as i have no problem that cricket is No. 1 in India.
What disturpes is that "soccer experts" think they know every sport by just watching/doing their own game. Those people also disturpe very often in german forums, talking about how bad cycling is (doping), yet they have no idea how dirty their sport is. Double Standard at it´s worst. Just populism...

 

[patterson_hood]

The appeal of Baseball makes sense when you are sat in the stands, as I found out at my first game in San Diego, loved it and could go back every night of the week (which is pretty much the way it works it seems). It is as intricate as cricket but as has been pointed out you need to grow up playing it to really understand that (I don't).

Cricket makes sense when you are sat in a deck-chair on a warm summers evening watching the game, it doesn't make sense when watched from a pub.

Anyone who prefers rugby union to rugby league is just confusing to me.

 

[ramjambunath]

Baseball does not appeal to me, then again I have never watched a live match and on the tele it is a sport with 10 mins of play and 20 minute commercial breaks. Cricket involves far more skill and the catches are taken without gloves and generally people uninitiated to the game at a small age tend not to enjoy it. My favourite catch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_69iSfwx0Y, it looks like one of ours who posted that.

I don't understand F1 complaints, this is a thread about sport not a glorified procession.

Most irritatingly, why do I have to watch some American School and College cheerleading show when I live halfway across the world and that too on my sports channel.

 

[LukeSchmid]

Vuelta a Espana stage 7

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You don´t have to take it serious, but can´t say it´s not balanced. Since you have yet to show where i was wrong a single time...
Anyway, i have just said that going from loosing to winning in one game is impossible in soccer... If you make that stretch comparing in-game-situations of matches teams have no control over (Schalke vs. Munich), yes you can expand the list endlessly. How about the wild card race in the NFL?...

Here you have two immediate weaknesses in your argument:
1) it is possible to go from losing to winning in soccer, and happens all the time. Remember when AC Milan were 3-0 up in the European Cup final, and Liverpool pulled it back? Maybe what you meant was that it's impossible to go from losing to winning in one action (i.e. with one score), and that's certainly true unless extraneous action affects it (such as scores elsewhere, away goals and the like which refer to other matches). However, is that necessarily a bad thing? Sometimes, no team deserves to lose. Some of the most exciting games are draws.
2) The wild card race in the NFL only serves to highlight one of its biggest problems: the divisional system. The fixture list in most soccer leagues is pretty uniform: you play everybody twice, once in your stadium, once in theirs. Everybody has played an equal number of games against equal quality opposition, and the best team wins. In the NFL, you could get artificially inflated stats by having an easy fixture list, and feasibly a team that goes 11-5 can miss the playoffs while a team that goes 8-8 can make it. How is that fair?

Pipo bash football here. That´s ok, since it´s a thread of "worst sports" opinions. I just criticised those who talked about something they don´t understand, like "standing around for minutes" in football. That´s plain and simple false...

There are lots of sports where there's lots of technicality. American football is one; a play can last for 4 or 5 seconds, then you can analyse it for the 40 seconds before the next play. That, I have no problem with. I think it's the filling of the broadcast with adverts that is frustrating, and certainly the state of the game really affects this; if it's a huge blowout it really gets frustrating having all that stopping. However, if anybody could watch the Steelers-Cardinals superbowl and not be drawn in, they do not understand sport.

No, you are wrong. Actual playing time is 11 minutes after the snap. Pre-Snap action isn´t calculated. If you do such cherry picking "analyzation" in soccer, you come up with an action of 2 minutes: Around 18 SOG tries, just 9 hitting the target (both teams). Compare that to Hockey for example (around 60 Shots on target per game). Even netto playing time is less in soccer (around 50 minutes, exact 60 in football)...

It's not really 60 minutes playing time though is it? The clock keeps running after a play if there's a tackle in bounds, and unless you have the Colts running the no-huddle or the team is hurrying up to the line because they're behind, you do get plenty of time without action after running plays.

 

[patterson_hood]

Cricket involves far more skill

Spoken like a person who has dismissed something without even trying to understand it. There are much fewer fielders in baseball and without gloves it wouldn't work, that doesn't mean they couldn't catch without gloves. Try hitting a 100mph fast ball with a baseball bat (and remember the ball speed in cricket is measured just after it is released by the bowler so doesn't reach the batsman at that speed, more like half that) or a curve ball pitched just across the back corner of the plate. The tactics are also just as complex as cricket. And I'm English so understand cricket much better than baseball.

The fact is baseball is the highest paid sport (by contract) in the world and if it was so unskilful we'd all be doing it.

 

[elapid]

The problem with American Football for non-Americans is the stop-start nature of the game. Look at all of the other football codes throughout the world: rugby union, rugby league, Australian Rules Football, Gaelic football, and soccer. They are all flowing games where decisions are made during play, not in a huddle in between plays. These football codes have minimal interruptions during play, no time outs, and no planned ad breaks. I am not knocking American football, just saying that as a spectacle, particularly for me because I did not grow up with the game, the gaps in play ruin the game.

Baseball and cricket share a lot of similarities IMO. Both involve mental (and physical) battles where bowler/pitcher are trying to outwit the batsmen. However, @ Patterson Hood, bowling in cricket is not all about the fastball so speed is not the most important determinant in trying to beat a batsman (and a fastball will not lose half its speed over 22 yards). Swing, reverse swing, finding the crack in the pitch, slow balls, off and leg spin, age of the ball, and age of the pitch are all factors that are taken into account. I enjoy cricket more because I grew up with the game and, as ramjambunath said, the catches, as well as the batsmen's array of stroke play (drives, pulls, cuts, hooks, etc) and fielding, are more spectacular to watch than baseball IMO. However, again, I think the major difference is where you grew up. I do not enjoy baseball because, although I know that there is battle going on between the pitcher and batter, I am not informed enough of the intracicies of this battle and what each is trying to do to work each other out. Ignorance on my part, but it does not detract from the game of baseball.

 

[patterson_hood]

@ Patterson Hood, bowling in cricket is not all about the fastball so speed is not the most important determinant in trying to beat a batsman (and a fastball will not lose half its speed over 22 yards).

Hence the reason I mentioned a curve ball in baseball as well. There are many other types of pitches as well. And it doesn't lose it's speed because of the distance, it loses it because of its contact with the ground (unless you're Darren Gough and every ball is a yorker).

I enjoy both, but to say cricket is more skilfull is just wrong.

 

[elapid]

Hence the reason I mentioned a curve ball in baseball as well. There are many other types of pitches as well. And it doesn't lose it's speed because of the distance, it loses it because of its contact with the ground (unless you're Darren Gough and every ball is a yorker).

I enjoy both, but to say cricket is more skilfull is just wrong.

I agree with you in regards to the skills with baseball and cricket. For me, the major difference between the two sports is which you grow up with and become familiar with because otherwise I think they share many similarities. Just to be argumentative, if the ball loses speed when it hits the pitch (which I agree it does, just not half the speed), then it doesn't matter if it is a yorker or a bouncer because both bounce once.