Americans are big fans of football, basketball, baseball, hockey (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL). USA have a great women soccer team (3rd in the world this year). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_women's_national_soccer_team In the US, there are several major sports, in Europe it's mostly soccer. I don't think it's right to criticize American sports.
I don't think people are criticising sports because they're 'American'. There are loads of different sports and loads of different people and surprise surprise we all like different things. Every sport has elements about it that appeal to some people and repulse others. I will freely admit that I can't stand basketball and I'm not interested in baseball. I'm not saying their bad sports, just that they don't appeal to me. I HAVE tried to like them, honest, but at the end of the day we just didn't hit it off. American football on the other hand I absolutely LOVE. I think it's a fabulous sport and on the TV I much prefer it to association football. I can watch any NFL game no matter who's playing whereas I can't watch s*ccer unless I have an interest in the result. I have no problem with people saying they don't like s*ccer, it's when they start saying it's not as good as say, chess, that I get all defensive.
yeah, and screw the metric system too it is very popular with young kids up through high school but honestly I think it's one of those sports that unless you're playing it it isn't much fun to watch. Hockey is another one...boring as hell to watch on TV IMHO BUT~!!!! ahhh to see it live, it's an entirely different creature.
I hear people say that about hockey but I am the opposite way. On TV you have commentary, different viewing angles, close in views, replays, free parking, and everything in the fridge is already paid for. The one thing I like at a live game is seeing the rest of the ice, particularly the bench with all the shift changes (to those unfamiliar with ice hockey, there are unlimited substitutions that occur without play stoppage). With live soccer, I like to watch the whole field and observe how a few players are very active in a play while the majority are walking or jogging into an open position or placing themselves in a position to intercept a pass. I am also impressed with the guy who runs the longest distance and he does it with a whistle in his mouth and cards in his pocket.
I could see that especially if you are hardcore fan of the hockey. I speak as a very limited observer. Plus you being up thee probably a lot more interest than down here
That's not strictly true. With the exception of the goalkeeper all players are active the whole time; you're looking for space, trying to deny space, feinting for a run, pulling players out of position, making yourself available, trying to guess which of your opponents is going to go where, who you should be marking, where the next pass is going, etc, etc. It's constant and you can't afford to switch off, you'll often hear commentators say, 'and the defence went to sleep there!" Even when the ball's out of play you've got to be aware of the shapes. And unless you're subbed (in which case you're not allowed to return) there's no going off for a rest either! Outfield players in the English Premier League cover on average around 13-14 kilometers every match; walking, jogging and sprinting.
did you guys watch an episode of the simpsons where the family goes to watch a soccer match boringly played by two teams that basically just passing over the ball back and forth in the center of the field, until the crowd grows angry and start a "soccer riot" throughout the city? that was a funny way to express american view about soccer LOL
It's not just Americans who dislike soccer; Canadians find it boring as well. Soccer is just not a North American sport.
There may be something to that in that soccer has an imbalance in the rules that favors defense. It parallels tax systems that penalize trying to get ahead so that would be a bit of a cultural difference. A bigger issue is options, most countries don't have the sporting options both in participation and viewing that the US and Canada have. Soccer is an option but it doesn't do well in the presence of football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. It does well with girls as one of the two major girls sports. There's also the issue of complexity. American football is vastly more specialized, complex and choreographed that soccer. So you may be right that there is a cultural component to it but there is more to it.
All of my grandparents came from the British Isles and they told me about a game called soccer. One of my grandfathers played for some team called the Rangers and talked about some team called the Hibs and another called the Celtics. Young people need to learn the great traditional name of the game.
It's often called 'soccer' in countries where there are several different codes of 'football'. Myself and our esteemed colleague, tbarr60, have had this discussion before on another thread. I accept that his grandparents used the word but out of all my family, friends and accquaintances I don't know ANYBODY who refers to football as 'soccer', indeed the word is despised. (Have you seen the film 'Green Street'? An American (the hobbit from Lord of The Rings) is visiting his sister in London and she shows some knowledge of football. The hobbit say "You've become a SOCCER fan?" and she says "Shh! Don't use that word here!") It's a 'class war' thing where the only people in England who call it 'soccer' are the upper classes. I do disagree with him on one other aspect, I do think it is almost totally a cultural thing with different people wanting different things from sport. I wonder how many Americans could watch a Test cricket match (which lasts 5 days) when you know from the very first morning that neither side is going to win!
Point of order! The clubs are just known as 'Rangers', 'Celtic' and 'Hibs'. There's no definite article used, they're abbreviations rather than nicknames. Celtic for example are 'Glasgow Celtic', not 'The Glasgow Celtics' That's all, carry on ...
I think your right. Baseball is a prized pastime and it has a lot tied in with American history. Also, considering we are split into states- we find it more exciting to represent our own state against another- rather then another country. It just seems more fun to me.
I attended a really, really, really, really short cricket match when I was in Adelaide, New Zealand beat the home side. It only lasted eight hours. I watch Sky Sports and see the attendance in England, it looks like not many more people watch cricket there either. Sorry about Celtics reference but that's a bit of conditioning since there is a storied basketball franchise here called the Celtics. Which does bring up a point of order, you said "Celtic for example are 'Glasgow Celtic', not 'The Glasgow Celtics'". Glasgow Celtic IS a singular term for a club therefore it should be "Celtic for example IS 'Glasgow Celtic', " I think I also mentioned that I find it odd that association football is the workingman's football while the more rugged footballs, rugby, is the upper class game. In the US it's the reverse.
True. County cricket is very poorly attended due to the fact that 75% of the matches take place during the working day. Also sometimes the Test match days on Thursdays and Mondays can have poor attendances for the same reason. With regard to the length of time we've just invented a really really really short version of Cricket called Twenty/20. (We've just had an inaugrual World Cup for it which was won by India. There were quite a few threads on here about it!) A Twenty/20 match only lasts three hours! Of course it's not proper cricket ... Oh goody, something else we can argue over! This singular/plural thing is another difference between us. When I listen to the NFL I always flinch when the commentator says something like "Cleveland has the ball on it's own 40 yard line." In Britain we'd say "Cleveland HAVE the ball on THEIR own 40 yard line. In other words in Britain the team is a plural, NOT a singular entity! Yes. They do say that Rugby is a rogues' game played by gentlemen whereas football is a gentleman's game played by rogues. However I should point out there are parts of the UK where one or other of the Rugby codes is also the blue-collar game. In Wales and the West of England rugby union is the dominant sport for all classes. In the north of England there are places where Rugby League is the preferred sport. However in the the English south, midlands, most of the north and the whole of Scotland it's 'football' and 'rugby'.